Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

AVON WEIR BILL [Lords]

Read a Second time, and committed.

CROSSRAIL BILL

KING'S CROSS RAILWAYS (No. 2) BILL

Ordered for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time on Thursday next.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

Education and Training

Mr. Sayeed: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what was the proportion of 16 and 17-year-olds in full-time education or training in (a) 1979 and (b) the most recent year for which figures are available.

The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mr. Tim Eggar): There has been a dramatic improvement in staying-on rates since 1979. In 1989–90, 75 per cent. of 16-year-olds participated in full-time education or youth training schemes, compared to 46 per cent. in 1979–80. Corresponding figures for 17-year-olds were 58 and 29 per cent. respectively. If part-time provision is included, the figures rise to 86 per cent. of 16-year-olds in 1989–90.

Mr. Sayeed: Does my hon. Friend agree that assessing ability only in terms of academic achievement sells young people short? Is not one reason for the remarkable increase in the number of young people in training—from 6,000 in 1979 to 260,000 today—the fact that we have returned to the common-sense recognition that vocational training is of considerable value and more closely reflects the abilities of many young people? Will my hon. Friend explain how national vocational qualifications help vocational training?

Mr. Eggar: I completely agree with my hon. Friend. It is terribly important that this country takes vocational training seriously. We need to motivate young people, whatever their aptitude or ability, to acquire further qualifications if we are to have a competitive and well-motivated work force in the 1990s and the next century. National vocational qualifications are a critical element in motivating youngsters and ensuring that their achievements are recognised rapidly.

Mr. Skinner: Has the Minister considered whether it would make more sense if young men and women from working-class families who leave school at 16 or 17 and are thrown into slave labour schemes where they earn a little over £20 a week, but who want to stay on at school, could stay on and be paid a sum equivalent to what they would get on training schemes? As a result, they would be better educated and would not be thrown on the scrap heap.

Mr. Eggar: I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would apologise to the House for the last Labour Government's appalling record. In 1979, only 46 per cent. of youngsters stayed on in full-time educational training. That figure has now risen to some 86 per cent., which shows the Government's achievement. The hon. Gentleman should recognise that.

Mr. Anthony Coombs: Does my hon. Friend agree that the welcome improvement in staying-on rates may be related to the quality of education in schools? Is not it significant that the 10 authorities with the worst staying-on rates are all Labour controlled and that many of them also figure among the 20 authorities whose students have the worst GCSE results?

Mr. Eggar: I very much agree with my hon. Friend. It is extraordinary that the Labour party consistently complains about resources and other matters yet is not prepared to point the finger where is should be pointed —at the performance of Labour-controlled local education authorities, as evidenced in staying-on rates and examination results. The Labour party should worry more about the quality of education offered by the education authorities that it controls, rather than going through its political rhetoric.

School Buildings

Mr. John Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what proposals he has to enable local education authorities to improve the fabric of school buildings.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Michael Fallon): We have provided £1.8 billion worth of annual capital guidelines and capital allocations to local education authorities and governors of voluntary-aided schools since 1990–91. It is for them to ensure that those substantial resources are used effectively.

Mr. Evans: Is the Minister aware that that sum will in no way meet the amount needed for the enormous backlog of repairs to schools in England, Wales and Scotland? Is he aware that in St. Helens, of the two bids submitted, £1 million was requested to meet health and safety requirements and £1 million was requested for essential repairs? The authority was allocated £587,000. Does the hon. Gentleman acknowledge, therefore, that a number of schools have not yet been made safe for pupils? Is not that disgraceful?

Mr. Fallon: I increased the allocation to St. Helens for improvement work from £311,000 last year to £556,000 this year. St. Helens' overall allocation was low because it did not bid for new places and put any proposals to tackle


its serious surplus place problem. Some 6,900 surplus places exist there. That includes more than one quarter of secondary school desks, which are empty.

Mr. Madel: Will my hon. Friend confirm that, when the Education (Schools) Bill becomes law, local education authorities will still have an absolute right to inspect the schools that they maintain, whenever they want to, so that they are always aware of the maintenance that needs to be done?

Mr. Fallon: Not to inspect schools, no, but LEAs will retain reserve powers to ensure that the budget delegated is managed appropriately. Under the Education Reform Act 1988, if an authority believes that a budget is mismanaged it has the ultimate power to withdraw it.

Mr. Loyden: The hon. Gentleman's suggestion that there is some relationship between surplus school buildings and the fabric of schools is nonsense. There are many surplus buildings in Liverpool, but that does not affect the way in which the local authority can carry out necessary improvements, particularly to inner-city schools.

Mr. Fallon: I was simply making the point that there is a cost in keeping a school desk empty—in St. Helens it amounts to about £1.5 million every year. It is perfectly open to LEAs to obtain higher capital allocations from my Department by putting forward sensible proposals to rationalise their school provision.

Standardised Testing

Mr. Amos: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the implementation of standardised testing in schools.

The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): Testing is the key to raising standards in our schools by providing clear information about pupils' progress. Effective annual tests of seven-year-olds are already in place. Tests of 11, 14 and 16-year-olds will follow in the next three years.

Mr. Amos: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that last year's testing of seven-year olds showed that our schools need less play and more learning, less discovery and more teaching, less mixed ability and more setting, less child-centred education and more whole-class subject teaching? Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the best way to raise standards in our schools is to provide more testing and to make the results of those tests publicly available—both of which the Labour party opposes?

Mr. Clarke: Yes, I certainly accept that. The results show an unacceptably wide difference between the performance of the very best and that of the very worst. They show that those tests have nothing to do with the amount spent per pupil in individual authority areas—some of the biggest spenders were right down at the bottom. They also show that results do not necessarily have anything to do with socio-economic circumstances or anything of that kind. I share my hon. Friend's belief that the answer lies in the sort of suggestions that he made and which have been revealed in the report of the three wise men.

Mr. Flannery: Does the Secretary of State understand that the testing of seven-year-olds does not quite mean that? He needs to be more careful. An academic year has three terms and children enter school at various stages in that year. Many of the children who are tested are only six. The results over two to three years will include those for children who missed out two terms and who were tested before the age of seven—they will account for a large percentage of the results. The Secretary of State has got it completely wrong. Daily assessment has gone on for all these years, with tests occasionally being undertaken—that is a reality. If testing is to be done, it should be done properly. The test for seven-year olds should not include children who have not yet reached that age.

Mr. Clarke: First, the good news. I am delighted to hear my hon. Friend—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh?"] I meant the hon. Gentleman, but he almost became my hon. Friend because of his grudging acceptance of the principle of testing. It is certainly true, as he says, that tests for seven-year-olds are a shorthand way of describing the progress of those at a particular stage. Some of them have spent more terms in schools than others— which must be borne in mind when looking at the position of an individual pupil—but all those factors even out in the local authorities. For example, the performance of the hon. Gentleman's authority, Sheffield, was markedly inferior to that of Rotherham, although the discrepancies of the sort that he described do not exist in those two authorities.

Mrs. Maureen Hicks: Do not we owe it to all our children, right across the country and irrespective of their primary schools, to identify their needs, strengths and weaknesses at an early age? Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the Labour party is a party of slow learners? Not only has the Labour party not realised that GCSE results at 16 in Labour-controlled authorities are some of the worst, but it has learnt nothing—it still opposes standardised testing from the age of seven.

Mr. Clarke: I agree that it is essential to get the basics of primary education right, because until a child has mastered them it has no possibility of gaining access to the rest of education. I agree also that it is absurd to suggest that there is anything wrong with national testing of pupils' progress at certain ages, both to inform parents and to inform localities about the performance of their schools. It is extraordinary that that has been resisted even before we have received the first results.

Mr. Straw: Is the Secretary of State aware that one of the most damning conclusions of the report on primary education which he published last week was the evidence that standards of reading among seven-year-olds have slumped since 1988, over precisely the period when Ministers have produced one change after another in the system of standardised testing for seven-year-olds? Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman ashamed of that record —of the fact that the reading standards of seven-year-olds have slumped by up to five months? Is he ashamed of the fact that every month he has been in office reading standards of seven-year-olds have fallen? Why is it that the Government promised higher standards of education in 1979, 1983 and 1987 but the results of 13 years in office have been lower standards of education?

Mr. Clarke: I seem to recall that the hon. Gentleman was one of those who until recently persistently argued


that standards in our schools were not falling and that he resisted pressure for changes in teaching methods and other ideas designed to correct the fall. He merely strengthens the conclusions of the three wise men, who think that there may have been some recent decline but who certainly did not atribute it to the national curriculum, as the hon. Gentleman did. They reject that argument.
The hon. Gentleman has no evidence for asserting that standards have dropped month by month. If he is beginning to share the public anxiety about standards in our schools, he should be ashamed of himself for having resisted each and every reform that has been aimed at reversing the trend and improving them.

University Education

Mr. Darling: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what percentage of the population attended university education in (a) England and Wales and (b) Scotland in 1990–91.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Alan Howarth): Separate age-participation indices for universities only are not calculated, nor are separate indices for England and Wales; but taking higher education as a whole, provisional data for the 1990–91 academic year show that 19.3 per cent. of young people entered higher education in Great Britain compared with 26.5 per cent. in Scotland.

Mr. Darling: The hon. Gentleman might do well to remember that Great Britain includes Scotland. I think that he meant England and Wales for one part and Scotland for the other.
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, given the higher participation rate in Scotland and the importance of the four-year degree there, it would be right to allocate proportionately more resources to the Scottish Higher Education Funding Council? If he does agree, how much more does he propose to allocate?

Mr. Howarth: The division of Universities Funding Council funding will be decided in due course in consultation with all the Departments concerned, but my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Scottish Office, always a powerful advocate for Scottish interests, has said that Scotland will receive a fair share of those resources.

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: Does my hon. Friend agree that our achievements in that aspect of education could not be better illustrated than by that which pertains in Nottinghamshire, where the university now has the highest ratio of applications to available places and where Nottingham polytechnic, which is soon to be a university, is planning to increase its capacity over the next couple of years to 16,000 student places? Is not that real success in higher education?

Mr. Howarth: As a Nottingham Member, my hon. Friend is justly proud of the higher education opportunities for his constituents in their own home city where we have a fine polytechnic and a magnificent university. I readily join him in paying tribute to the remarkable achievements of the academic and other staff in those institutions of higher education in terms of the wonderful opportunities that they are offering to more and more of our young people and to people of all ages.

Mr. John D. Taylor: Scottish universities now take many students from the Republic of Ireland and Scotland has to pay the full tuition fees for all those students. Given that the Republic of Ireland does not pay the tuition fees of the few Scottish students in the Republic, is that additional burden on Scottish universities taken into account and are larger grants made available to those universities on that basis?

Mr. Howarth: The right hon. Gentleman is alluding to the arrangements for the support of students in higher education that apply within the European Community. All relevant factors are taken into account by the funding councils when they decide how to allocate resources.

Grant-maintained Schools

Mr. David Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many schools have applied for grant-maintained status.

Mr. Eggar: I am delighted to say that, to date, 315 schools have opted for grant-maintained status.

Mr. Evans: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Is not it a fact that the Labour party would throw out of the window all the grant-maintained schools and return them to the control of its friends in the town halls? Is not it also a fact that pupils in the worst authorities, run by Labour, have the worst GCSE English and maths results? That is what would happen to education if that lot ever gained control.

Mr. Eggar: The Labour party is dedicated to lowering standards. One of its latest pledges is to destroy our A-level system. My hon. Friend is right that the Labour party would be prepared to overrule parental ballots and to take grant-maintained schools back into the throes of LEA control, which is exactly what parents have voted to escape.

Mr. Tony Banks: The Minister has just appointed two of his own governors to Stratford school in my constituency. Given the national publicity surrounding that school and the instability and chaos there, what procedure exists for schools that lose or have removed from them their grant-maintained status?

Mr. Eggar: It would be wise if the hon. Gentleman actually looked at the record of Stratford school. When Newham had finished trying to destroy that school, it had about 300 pupils, but there are now almost double that number. When Newham's custody of that school ceased, the standards of education were appallingly low, but Her Majesty's inspectors now report a significant improvement in educational standards there—

Mr. Tony Banks: Answer the question.

Mr. Eggar: Those are the real facts about Stratford, not the black propaganda that the hon. Gentleman wishes to put around.

Mr. Pawsey: Does my hon. Friend agree that the principal attraction of grant-maintained schools is not the additional funding that they receive but the greater independence from the LEAs that they then enjoy? Does he further agree that, following the re-election of the


Conservative party to office after the next general election, there will be an avalanche of applications from state schools seeking grant-maintained status?

Mr. Eggar: I completely agree with my hon. Friend. I know that he has first-hand experience of the benefits of GM schools, as the school that used to be known as Wold Newton transferred to grant-maintained status a few months ago and is showing the way and what can be achieved as a result of a move to grant-maintained status.

Ms. Armstrong: Will the Minster confirm that if the bribes that the Secretary of State reinforced in terms of capital allocations for grant-maintained schools last week were extended to meet the right hon. and learned Gentleman's other pledge to extend that to every possible school, the cost would be the equivalent of more than one penny on VAT?

Mr. Eggar: The hon. Lady is somewhat confused. I have not heard even the chief Opposition Treasury spokeman talk in terms of putting one penny on VAT. Perhaps the hon. Lady should go for a tutorial with him to understand how VAT is collected. As to her other point, I can say only what I said to her about her calculations on nursery school resources. She is not even at level 1 in maths, and should get some help.

Torrells School, Grays

Mr. Janman: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he intends to make a decision on the application for grant-maintained status from Torrells comprehensive school, Grays, Essex.

Mr. Eggar: Not later than the end of February.

Mr. Janman: My hon. Friend will be glad to know that my constituents, particularly those who are parents at this school, will be pleased to hear that he will make a fast decision. He will be aware that the parents at the school voted by a ratio of nearly 3:1 for grant-maintained status. I am sure that he will wish to join me in congratulating the governors, the headmaster and the parents involved in the school on their wisdom in applying for grant-maintained status so as to free themselves from the bureaucracy and interference of the local education authority. Will he ensure that the decision that he makes is a positive one?

Mr. Eggar: I have listened carefully to my hon. Friend. I stand by what I said—I shall do my utmost to get a decision by the end of February. I welcome the commitment that has been shown by the head of the governing body, but I cannot give any hint of the decision that I will be taking by the end of February.

Mr. Leighton: Will the Minister have a care with Torrells school in view of the mistake that he made with Stratford school? Is he aware that Father Reilley, the chairman of the governors, has already been disposed of, that the new chairman had a brawl with the head teacher, to which the police had to be called, that the chairman has purported to sack the head teacher and that the Department has intervened and had correspondence and has appointed new governors? Do we have—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The question is about Torrells school.

Mr. Leighton: Do we have local management of this school or is it run by the Department?

Mr. Eggar: The hon. Gentleman probably needs a geography lesson. Stratford school is not in Essex, as he should know. With regard to what he said about Stratford school, if he had taken rather more interest in the school when it was in the control of Newham and insisted on the school keeping up to reasonable standards and if he now put pressure on Newham LEA to ensure that it raised standards in schools, he would be doing more for his constituents than he is by his performance today.

City Technololgy Colleges

Mr. Cryer: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the current number of established city technology colleges.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Thirteen city technology colleges are already established, and two more will be open by autumn next year. The extension of CTC principles and practice into the rest of state education is also under way. I announced on 15 January the establishment, with the joint support of British Aerospace, of Hutton grammar school in Lancashire as the first voluntary-aided technology school. We are receiving many worthwhile bids from schools wishing to become technology schools in response to the announcement we made of the availability of capital funds for this purpose.

Mr. Cryer: Is not it the truth that CTCs have emerged only as a result of the lavish use of taxpayers' money to prop them up? Will the Secretary of State accept that in Bradford, the capital expenditure on one CTC is roughly the equivalent of the whole of the capital expenditure for one year awarded by the Government, but Bradford public schools are in dire need of expenditure? Is not it true that the Government's attitude towards CTCs is private affluence and, towards the rest of the education system, public squalor?

Mr. Clarke: The Mickey Mouse figures on CTC expenditure that critics in Bradford tend to use compare capital expenditure on schools starting from scratch with that for existing schools that do not have to be built. The funding of CTCs is on a par with that of other local education authority schools, and their recurrent funding will not be different from that of other schools in their areas. CTCs offer education opportunities to children of all abilities—particularly those drawn from the most deprived parts of the cities that they serve. It is unbelievably churlish if, for ideological reasons, the hon. Gentleman remains hostile to the best innovation in Bradford for years, while defending a local authority that had the worst results in the country in the recent tests for seven-year-olds.

Mr. William Powell: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the establishment of city technology colleges—not least among them, Brooke CTC in Corby —provides a model for the future normal state schooling system? Will he take urgent steps to ensure that the spread of city technology colleges is accelerated as quickly as possible? I welcome my right hon. and learned Friend's school technology initiative, and hope that he will favour Our Lady and Pope John school in Corby for funding under that scheme.

Mr. Clarke: I am closely following the progress of Brooke CTC, the site of which I visited only recently. I know how popular and successful it has become. I agree with my hon. Friend that the next important consequence to flow from the CTC programme is that the benefits of all the curriculum development work undertaken by CTCs will spread to the rest of the education system. The technology initiative is an important element in that.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Whatever the difference of view held across the House, given that CTCs are funded by public money, will the Secretary of State take urgent steps to give parents whose children are refused admission to them the same right of appeal that is available in respect of all other publicly-funded schools?

Mr. Clarke: I view CTCs as exemplifying the principle of parental choice that operates in many other parts of the education system. I will certainly consider the hon. Gentleman's point, because it is our aim to put CTC's on a level with others in regard to funding and other aspects. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising such a point, rather than displaying the ridiculous opposition that we have seen from Labour, which still seems pledged to getting rid of some of the finest schools in the state education system.

State Schools, West Norfolk

Mr. Bellingham: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what recent representations he has received in connection with state schools in west Norfolk.

Mr. Fallon: We have received representations about capital funding for several schools in west Norfolk. Earlier this month, I saw a deputation that opposed Norfolk education authority's proposals to close Bradenham voluntary controlled primary school, led by my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mrs. Shephard).

Mr. Bellingham: Will my hon. Friend the Minister pay tribute to the professionalism of Norfolk teachers and in particular to those who work in small, rural primary schools? He will he aware of the important role that such schools play in local communities. Will my hon. Friend confirm that, unlike the Labour group on Norfolk county council, he believes in small primary schools? Will he confirm that, provided they can deliver the national curriculum, they will continue to have an important role in modern education?

Mr. Fallon: Yes. I am happy to pay tribute to those teachers and to the well-run Norfolk education authority. It was one of the first to introduce local schools management, which paved the way for a series of applications for full grant-maintained status.

Special Schools

Mr. Janner: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will make increased provision for special schools.

Mr. Fallon: The local authority finance settlement for 1991–92 allows for local authorities in England to spend nearly £17.5 billion on education—16 per cent. more than the 1990–91 settlement. The settlement for 1992–93 allows for spending of over £18.7 billion, a further increase of 7

per cent. Given good management, that should be sufficient to enable LEAs to provide for children with special educational needs.

Mr. Janner: Is the Minister aware of the special need in all such schools for nursing cover of the kind currently provided through the health authority? Is he further aware that many special schools, including the excellent Weston Park school in my constituency, are worried about the threat to that cover? If it is not to be provided by the health authority, will the Government give an assurance that the schools themselves will be empowered and funded to offer the nursing care that children with special needs require?

Mr. Fallon: I shall certainly consider that point. Total spending per pupil on special schools and related provisions is currently running at a level four times higher than on pupils in ordinary mainstream schools.

Mr. Haselhurst: Is my hon. Friend aware that needs and expectations in regard to special types of education seem to be rising all the time? It is felt that resources do not always match every kind of special need that may occur, especially in rural primary schools. Does my hon. Friend consider that it is time to take a fresh look at the whole question?

Mr. Fallon: It is for local authorities to allocate their priorities. We have encouraged those who introduced local management of schools first to look again at their schools, and to ensure that the right balance exists between the funding of secondary schools and that of primary schools.

Cleveland Schools (Maintenance)

Dr. Kumar: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received about the level of expenditure on maintenance for Cleveland's schools; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Fallon: None, Sir.

Dr. Kumar: Is the Minister aware that Cleveland's schools need a £50 million maintenance programme? His Department has not allocated a single penny to that programme for 1992–93. Is that part of the disgraceful, phoney citizens charter?

Mr. Fallon: As I increased Cleveland's capital allocation from £2.9 million to £3.8 million, I cannot accept what the hon. Gentleman says. Indeed, the allocation for improvement work in Cleveland's schools has risen from £90,000 this year to £1.4 million next year.

Mr. Harry Greenway: When considering the principle and amount of funding for schools in Cleveland, will my hon. Friend also consider the funding of schools in Ealing? Today, the Department approved grant-maintained status for five schools in wealthy, middle-class and less wealthy areas in that borough. Are we not being taught the lesson that parents want independence for their schools— whether or not they are in the state sector—because that is the best way of achieving the best possible education for children in Ealing, Cleveland and everywhere else?

Mr. Fallon: Indeed. I congratulate those schools on obtaining grant-maintained status. Ealing has led the way, and I hope that it will not be too long before other education authorities such as Cleveland follow.

Mr. Fatchett: Is it not sad that no Cleveland Conservative has been able to come and represent the children of Cleveland today, and that that task has had to be left to a Conservative from Ealing?
Is the Minister aware that 18 schools in the Cleveland authority area were built before 1914 and that in the current financial year Cleveland has received only a quarter of its capital allocation? It is therefore not surprising that thousands of children in Cleveland's schools are being taught in sub-standard conditions—which must have an effect on education standards. Is it not about time that the Government invested in Cleveland's schools? Or are we seeing yet another example of the application of double standards, with Ministers providing no money for the public sector, while sending their own children to school in the private sector?

Mr. Fallon: I do not see how either the hon. Gentleman or his hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh (Dr. Kumar) can describe the £3.8 million allocation for Cleveland as "no money". The plain fact is that there are steps that Cleveland should be taking to improve the way that it manages education spending. Cleveland has some 20,000 empty school places, and spends some £80 per pupil on its central administration, while only £40 per pupil is spent across the border in North Yorkshire.

Seven-year-olds (Testing)

Mr. Squire: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the results of testing seven-year-olds.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: The national and local results of the tests of seven-year-olds which I published on 19 December give, for the first time, a clear picture of how our seven-year-olds are performing.
We should remember that over 70 per cent. of seven-year-olds did reach the targets for that age in English, mathematics and science. However, the wide fluctuations in the performance of individual local education authorities cannot be fully explained by variations in social and economic circumstances or by variations in spending on education, and show that there is plenty of scope to improve standards.

Mr. Squire: My right hon. and learned Friend will know that school children in my borough of Havering came fifth overall in the national listings. That is a considerable achievement.
Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that my local Labour party is circulating a leaflet, from which I shall now quote—

Hon. Members: No quotes.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Paraphrase, please.

Mr. Squire: In deference to you, Mr. Speaker, I shall do so.
According to the leaflet, testing at seven is harmful and impractical. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that our talented children deserve better than a Labour council, let alone a Labour Government?

Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend is certainly right. The publication of the results allowed tribute to be paid to the local authorities whose results were good and where the hard work of teachers was showing results. The

publication of results need not be taken as a threat to a good education system. I also share my hon. Friend's regret that some people still seem to think that one can teach a national curriculum sensibly without testing children's progress in an organised fashion. I am astonished that for so long we decided that the results of such tests should be kept secret from the public. It is a great pity that such reactionary ideas are still harboured by the Labour party in Havering and elsewhere.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: I am glad that the Minister recognises that the results confirm previous studies—including those by Her Majesty's inspectorate—that most children, teachers and schools are getting or offer a good education. Will he commission a report to consider in detail and with expertise the fluctuations to which he referred rather than, as he has, jumping to his own conclusions about why such fluctuations should exist? After all, some areas include children with special needs and some do not; in some areas children have English as a second language and in others they do not; and, as he admits, teachers have had problems with the tests themselves. Will he commission such a report?

Mr. Clarke: I do not think that we have had such a clear picture before of the extraordinarily wide variations between different parts of the country. I believe that the publication of these results will cause people to focus on the reasons for the low standards in some places, except for hon. Members representing Bradford and Newham—the two lowest scoring local authorities—whose reaction is that one should not have such testing and that it is merely a problem forced on the local authority. The report that I commissioned to get a debate going on why some schools were failing was commissioned from three people whose expertise has not been challenged and nor, as far as I know, have most of their conclusions. However, I agree with the three wise men and with the hon. Gentleman. The vast majority of teachers are working extremely hard to achieve good results under the national curriculum and our aim is to get all schools up to the standards of the best.

Dr. Hampson: Did my right hon. and learned Friend notice that last summer the independent report into Leeds primary schools showed clearly that the schools that had had enhanced resources and more teachers could not show a positive correlation between extra resources and higher standards and, moreover, that the report highlighted the problem of teaching methods? It said that far too many teachers had the perception that unless they followed the good practice set down by local authority advisers, their career prospects in the city would be blighted.

Mr. Clarke: I agree with my hon. Friend. The report by Professor Alexander into the Leeds primary school experience should be read carefully by anyone who is interested in primary school methods. There was a project that led to considerable extra expenditure in primary schools which was closely steered into the dogmatic application of a version of teaching methods and which had harmful consequences in schools. It showed not only that there was no correlation between expenditure and results but that the rather ridiculous pursuit of ideology involving child-centred education led to a reduction in standards because of the pressure on teachers.

Mr. Straw: Is the Secretary of State aware that according to figures provided in a parliamentary written


answer by the Minister of State about the proportion of seven-year-olds reaching the highest level of attainment —level 3—Labour-controlled Haringey is equal top and that Labour-controlled Merton, Camden and Hackney are in the top five placings, streets ahead of Tory Wandsworth which is the source of so much dogma about Tory education policies? Will the Secretary of State now applaud those London Labour boroughs for their excellent results?

Mr. Clarke: When I announced the results I paid tribute to places such as Wigan and St. Helens— [Hots. MEMBERS: "And Hackney".]—and to Hackney if the figures are accurate for level 3 attainments. The hon. Gentleman resisted publication of the information on which he now relies. He reduces it to this petty party political level and then he makes excuses for all the lowest-performing local authorities, which are Labour-controlled, and resists any idea that we should address the teaching methods that have so badly let down children in Newham, Bradford and all the other areas in the bottom 20, almost all of which are Labour controlled.

University Teaching Buildings

Mr. Morgan: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what consultations he has had with the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals regarding capital expenditure on new university teaching buildings.

Mr. Alan Howarth: My right hon. and learned Friend and I meet the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals from time to time on a range of matters, including the capital and recurrent funding needs of the universities.

Mr. Morgan: Is the Minister aware that the Government are cramming more and more university students into the same buildings as a consequence of the fact that they are trying to have people obtain degrees on the cheap? Does he realise that, for example, in University college, Cardiff it is proposed to put an extra 1,000 students into the humanities building over the next three years? Does not he realise that there is a serious danger of recreating the student ferment of 1969? This time, however, it will not be about the great philosophical issues of class warfare and who should run the world; it will be simply about where students can sit to hear a lecture.

Mr. Howarth: Our policy is to promote wider participation and more opportunity in higher education. At the same time, we are asking for reasonable management efficiency gains on the part of institutions. University capital investment in 1992–93—money provided by the taxpayer—will amount to £216 million. By any standards that is a very significant sum.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Ronnie Campbell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 28 January.

The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings

with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Mr. Campbell: Is the Prime Minister aware that people in my constituency of Blyth Valley eagerly await the RECHAR money? As there is a split in his Cabinet will he get off his backside, stop swanning around that desert island and have the money paid?

The Prime Minister: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the RECHAR money has been paid by Britain into the European Community and that we should have it back. I hope that Commissioner Milian will release it speedily.

Sir William Shelton: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that we already see benefits flowing from the citizens charter? I refer, for instance, to shorter hospital waiting lists and to school performance league tables. Will my right hon. Friend tell the House what future benefits—proven benefits—the people of this country will see flowing from the citizens charter?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. We are determined to get the best possible value for the enormous amount of public money that is available at present. In addition to the improved information and guidance systems that we have already set up, there will be much more flexible opening hours in the case of tax offices, benefits offices and employment service offices, and a much more detailed and personal service for the taxpayer, who has the cost of those services compulsorily extracted in taxes from his or her pocket.

Mr. Kinnock: Will the Prime Minister now give a categoric assurance that he will not impose any increase in VAT? Will he please answer yes or no?

The Prime Minister: We have no plans to increase value added tax.

Mr. Kinnock: Why cannot the Prime Minister give a straight answer to a straight question? Is he aware that the words he has just used are exactly the same as those that were used by his predecessor just before her Government increased VAT? Why cannot he tell us now what his plans are? Or is he trying to forget that the Government have increased VAT five times in 13 years? Is not that why everyone has good reason to know that Tory Governments mean higher VAT?

The Prime Minister: There will be no VAT increase. Unlike the Labour party, we have published our spending plans and there is no need for us to raise VAT to meet them. So that the right hon. Gentleman is in no doubt, I tell him that I have no plans to raise the top rate of tax or the level of national insurance contributions.

Mr. Kinnock: It is time that the Prime Minister came clean with the country. In view of the record of Conservative Governments in always putting up VAT and in view of the Prime Minister's promises on other aspects of policy, how can he pretend that his intention is not to put up VAT? Do not a Tory Government make VAT rises a certainty?

The Prime Minister: Before the right hon. Gentleman carries that fib any further, does he recall a further and earlier prediction about value added tax? I quote:


Labour foresees 60 per cent. VAT. VAT could rise to 60 per cent. if radical tax changes …are introduced by a new Tory Government.
The right hon. Gentleman may recall that prediction by his right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) before the previous election. That was also the time when the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook claimed that Labour would win by a landslide in the 1987 election. He was wrong on both points then and he is wrong now.

Mr. Gerald Bowden: Does my right hon. Friend agree —[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask the House to settle down.

Mr. Bowden: Does my right hon. Friend agree—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Bowden: Does my right hon. Friend agree that a party's commitment to public services is best judged by its record in government? Will my right hon. Friend consult our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to ascertain who controls the 20 authorities that have the highest community charge, the highest rent arrears and more vacant properties than any other authorities? Does my borough of Southwark feature among them?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend makes a sound and fair point. All too often, Labour-controlled councils provide shoddy services at far too high a cost. I well recall the Opposition saying, "If you wish to see what a Labour Government would be like, look at Labour local government."

Mr. Ashdown: On the subject of predictions, and while the Prime Minister reflects today on the gloomy report by the Confederation of British Industry, does he recall on new year's day this year saying on Radio 4 that in retrospect, we would look back and say that the economic recovery had already started? In retrospect, does the Prime Minister agree that he might spend less time talking up false economic dawns and more time taking action for economic recovery?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is becoming a professional gloom monger. When we look back to the present, it will be perfectly clear that in many sectors of the economy, the recovery has indeed started.

Mr. Onslow: Does my right hon. Friend remember that when the investment income surcharge was abolished in 1984, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer described it as an unfair and anomalous tax on savings and on the rewards of personal enterprise? What would he say today to anyone who was stupid enough to recommit himself to reintroducing it, as Labour has done?

The Prime Minister: I would certainly find that extraordinary. I would find it even more extraordinary from a party that claims to care about investment, yet clearly has no understanding that investment comes from savings.

Mr. Livingstone: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 28 January.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Livingstone: Given the commitment in the citizens charter to parental choice in education, will the Prime Minister agree to meet a small delegation of parents from William Gladstone school which has an excellent academic record and an expanding roll but which faces closure as Brent council wishes to sell the school because of its site value?

The Prime Minister: I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State will be happy to see the hon. Member concerned.

Mr. Michael Morris: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the greatest service he can continue to do for the British public is to keep inflation below 5 per cent? Is he further aware that the public remembers that inflation under Labour was 15 per cent., 20 per cent. and 25 per cent? In order to keep the level of inflation down, will he have a look at what is happening with the six major grocery chains, the increased share of the margins that they are getting and the fact that their margins are now twice the level found in the major grocery chains throughout Europe?

The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend says, inflation is low and we are determined that it will stay low. He will recall that inflation never fell below 7.4 per cent., and that for only a very brief period, while the Labour party was in Government.
I will certainly look at the point that my hon. Friend has mentioned.

Ms Hoey: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 28 January.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Lady to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Ms Hoey: Before the Prime Minister retires to his desert island, taking with him his Trollope and a very large section of my constituency—without my permission—will he give a clear and simple statement about what he will offer to pensioners so that they can retire with some luxury? Will he match Labour's commitment to pensions?

The Prime Minister: A commitment to pensions means nothing if it is not matched by a commitment to low inflation.

Mr. Devlin: rose—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member has not asked a question of the Prime Minister for many months, and not in this Session, unlike some other hon. Members, now shouting "Marginal seat."

Mr. Devlin: Has my right hon. Friend had an opportunity to look at the study in The Financial Times on 6 January which pointed to the fact that the northern region has very much benefited from the economic restructuring of the 1980s and is now coming out of recession faster than any other part of the country, due to the success of the regeneration programmes that the Government have put in place in the region?

The Prime Minister: I have seen that myself in visits to the north. There is no doubt that the north has seen the start of many good things in this country and I am certain that it will be the same again with the economic recovery.

Mr. McKelvey: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 28 January.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. McKelvey: Can the Prime Minister confirm that last Wednesday he had lunch with Lord Rothermere? Did he take the opportunity on that occasion to co-ordinate the campaign of lies and vilification that the Rothermere press has been conducting against the Labour party?

The Prime Minister: I took the opportunity to enjoy an excellent luncheon. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Sir John Farr: As my right hon. Friend prepares himself for the important meeting with President Yeltsin later this week in London, will he take the opportunity of seeing what can be done to deal with the massive threat which still exists from all the different independent Russian states?

The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend says, this will be an important opportunity to discuss with President Yeltsin both the international difficulties posed by the break-up of the old Soviet Union and the extent to which the west might usefully help the Russian Republic in the difficulties that it faces at present. I anticipate that both those matters will be on our agenda.

Mr. Bernie Grant: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 28 January.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Grant: Will the Prime Minister join me in congratulating Labour-controlled Haringey council and the children, teachers and parents of Haringey on the fact that our schools came joint top in English, maths and science in the level 3 standard assessment test and top in

the individual subject of science? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that that is a remarkable achievement, bearing in mind the fact that Haringey is an inner-London borough and has all the associated problems? Is not he ashamed at the remarks of his predecessor and of his ministerial colleagues who have constantly criticised Haringey's education policy and have cut its revenue support grant? Will the right hon. Gentleman see to it that Haringey receives an increase in its revenue support grant and standard spending assessment as a result of its excellent work in educating the children at its schools?

The Prime Minister: I am delighted to hear what the hon. Gentleman says. I am especially pleased to hear that he now supports the tests introduced by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science. I can tell from what he said that he is a strong supporter of the parents charter, without which those results might not have been fully known.

Mr. Conway: Will my right hon. Friend take time to congratulate British industry on the fact that it has achieved record exports in the past quarter, that 27 of the top 50 European companies are British and that Britain exports more of its national product than Japan? Are not those successful British companies sick and tired of being talked down by the doom-monger Labour party?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right. Yesterday's trade figures showed clearly that export volumes were at record levels even in a worldwide economic downturn. My hon. Friend was also right about some Opposition Members talking down the economy. The Leader of the Opposition said in his letter to supporters at the beginning of this year that Britain had a £20 billion trade deficit, when the truth was that the deficit fell by a half and the right hon. Gentleman's figures were wholly wrong. Perhaps he will now write again to his supporters and correct his error.

Industrial Relations

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Michael Howard): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the Government's legislative intentions, following the consultation on the Green Paper "Industrial Relations in the 1990s", which was published in July last year.
Like all our previous trade union legislation, the proposals that I am announcing today have two main objectives—first, to safeguard the democratic rights of trade union members within their unions and, secondly, to protect employees, employers and the community at large against the abuse of industrial power. Each of the proposals is carefully designed to meet a clear deficiency in our present arrangements, that has been acknowledged by many of the organisations that have commented on the Green Paper.
The CBI says in its response that its members
warmly welcome the Government's continued commitment to reviewing the law governing the conduct of industrial relations".
The Engineering Employers Federation says that its members
strongly support the Government's objective of providing a balanced and effective framework of trade union and industrial relations law
and that
the step by step approach has been seen by all to have worked successfully and it is right that it should continue.
The Institute of Personnel Management says— [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask the House to settle down and listen to the statement, and I remind hon. Members that we have a busy day ahead of us.

Mr. Howard: The Green Paper, said the IPM,
is primarily aimed at particular abuses which it is the duty of Government to address in order to protect the rights of the individual.
In all, we have had more than 100 responses to the Green Paper. These have come from employers' organisations, individual companies, trade unions and other organisations, and from individual people. The number of responses is in itself a clear indication of the interest the Green Paper has aroused and the importance of the issues it has raised. Most of the proposals it contains have been widely welcomed.
I deal first with the proposals to protect the public against strikes and other forms of industrial action. The first proposal was announced by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in his statement on the citizens charter.
We proposed in the citizens charter to provide a new right for members of the public in relation to unlawful industrial action which affects a public service. This proposal has been widely welcomed. At present, the employer has the right to bring proceedings against a trade union which organises an unlawful strike. Members of the public, who are usually the specific target of industrial action, have no such right. If the employer does nothing, the citizen is defenceless.
We therefore intend to introduce legislation to establish a new right for members of the public to seek an injunction to halt unlawful industrial action affecting a public service if the employer concerned fails to use the remedies

available to him. This proposal has been widely welcomed. It will enhance the protection of the public, and it will be a further deterrent to unlawful industrial action.
The consultations have also shown that there is strong support for legislation to require trade unions to give seven days' notice of strikes. Strike notice is a well established feature of the law in other countries. This requirement will help to protect the general public against lightning strikes in the public services. It will also allow employers to take steps to safeguard jobs and businesses.
In addition, there has been strong support for the proposal to reduce the scope for intimidation and fraud by requiring strike ballots to be conducted by post and to be subject to independent scrutiny.
These measures will add significantly to the protection which our legislation already provides against strikes which are deliberately targeted on the life of the community. We intend to introduce legislation to implement all of them.
I turn now to the rights of individual union members. The first concerns an employee's freedom to join the union of his choice. Only last year we saw how building workers who left the Union of Construction, Allied Trades and Technicians when its leadership fell into the hands of the far left were prevented from joining the General, Municipal and Boilermakers union, even after the GMB had indicated that it would welcome them. That was clear evidence of how the operation of the Trades Union Congress's Bridlington principles can deny employees the chance to belong to the union of their choice.
Contrary to the claims of the TUC, only a minority of employers have expressed reservations about the change in the law that we propose to make. We therefore propose to introduce legislation which will give individual employees the right to join the union of their choice, free from interference from any arrangement between trade union bosses which is designed to deny them that choice.
The consultation also showed widespread support for the proposition that the law should not allow trade union dues to be deducted from an employee's salary without his or her individual consent. Since the Green Paper was published, there has been further evidence of the scope for abuse of check-off arrangements. On 8 December, for example, the Sunday Times reported that union subscriptions had been deducted from the pay of some 10,000 construction workers in London, but that these subscriptions had never reached their trade union. The case for reform of the law is clear.
Some employers have said that they believe that a requirement to review the check-off annually would be unnecessary and burdensome. I have therefore decided to accept a proposal from the Institute of Personnel Management that employers should be required to seek the consent of their employees to the check-off every three years. In addition, we propose to introduce legal safeguards which will ensure that in future no employee has union subscriptions deducted from his pay without his individual consent.
Again, no one has seriously questioned the need for further legislation to protect union members against the sort of financial mismanagement which was revealed in the Lightman report into the affairs of the National Union of Mineworkers. Nor is there any serious doubt that the law on trade union elections needs to be strengthened, in the


light of the ballot rigging in the 1990 elections for the national executive of the Transport and General Workers Union.
I have decided to adopt a suggestion which was put to my Department in the course of the consultation that unions should be required to employ a mailing house or some other external agency to distribute and store voting papers. This proposal is, I believe, the most effective way to ensure that electoral fraud of the kind which occurred in the Transport and General Workers Union is not repeated. I have also accepted the advice of a number of organisations, including the TUC, that, for security reasons, union members should not have access to the names and addresses of other union members. Instead, I propose that the independent scrutineer should be allowed such access on behalf of any union members who are concerned that the list may not be accurate.
The consultations have reflected a wide range of views on the proposal in the Green Paper relating to the legal status of collective agreements. There was both support for and opposition to the specific proposal on which we sought views. Some employers' organisations have put forward alternative suggestions. This is an important and complex issue. We shall continue to consider the scope for amending the law in the light of the comments that we have received and, if appropriate, we shall consult further before taking a final decision.
It should be clear to everyone that this has been a genuine and productive consultation. We have modified some of our proposals in the light of the views we have received. But the consultations have shown that there is widespread majority support amongst employers for a great majority of the proposals in the Green Paper.
The legislative plans that I have announced today are designed to consolidate and build on the improvement in industrial relations which we have achieved over the last 12 years. They will increase the rights of individual members of the public, individual trade union members, individual employees and the community at large. They will ensure that we have an effective and up-to-date framework of law in order to maintain that progress in the 1990s.
The clearest evidence of the progress we have achieved so far is our record on strikes. More working days were lost because of strikes in the last 12 months of the last Labour Government than have been lost in all the last five years put together.
No one should be surprised by that stark contrast. Before 1980, the law gave trade unions a virtually unlimited licence to organise strikes and industrial action, not matter how remote from the original dispute. There was no requirement for ballots before strikes, and the law allowed flying pickets to spread the disruptive effects of industrial action far and wide.
The choice before the House and the country is clear. On the one hand, there is the threat to roll back the legislation of the last 12 years, to put the trade unions back in the driving seat and make strikes easier, longer, more frequent and more damaging than ever before. That is the policy of the Labour party. On the other hand, we can carry forward the process of reform and build on the achievements of the last 12 years.

Mr. Joseph Ashton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Howard: That is what the decisions which I have announced today will do, and that is why they deserve the support of the House.

Mr. Tony Blair: Let me deal with the main points of the statement item by item. On the seven-day cooling-off period, it is correct, as the Minister says, that there are similar provisions in other European countries, but will he confirm that, in those countries where there is a cooling-off period for unions, there is also a cooling-off period for employers? Is it his intention to legislate even-handedly for both?
Secondly, as for ballots before strikes, surely the important requirement is independent scrutiny of the ballot, whether it is postal or workplace. May I put it to him that the danger of his proposal of making workplace ballots illegal, which is what he is proposing, even where there is independent scrutiny, is that the participation level is lower for such ballots? Since he had the gall to suggest that employers' organisations all support the proposals, may I put it to him that this and many other parts of his provisions were vehemently opposed by employers' organisations, including the CBI, the British Association of Chambers of Commerce and the Institute of Personnel Management?
Let me read to the right hon. and learned Gentleman what the Engineering Employers Federation said:
Our experience is that provided they are properly conducted"—
the very point that I am making—
secret workplace ballots are not subject to harassment and have additional beneficial features. EEF experience is that workplace secret ballots have a significantly higher level of return than postal ballots.
Thirdly, as for members of the public suing in respect of unlawful action in the public sector, will the Secretary of State confirm that unions have no immunity now for unlawful action in respect of public services and, that, although there may be some doubt about it, the only decided case in law held that the public already have the right to sue in respect of action that affects them?
On the fourth part, relating to Bridlington, the Minister proposes legislation. Six months ago, we put to him the problem of single-union agreements and he dismissed it. The CBI, the British Institute of Management and the
Institute of Personnel Management have all put to him the same point about single-union agreements. Will the Minister comment specifically on that?
While we are on the subject of "joining the union of your choice", will he ensure that the security guards who are presently members of the Transport and General Workers Union and the General, Municipal, Boilermakers and Allied Trades Union, employed by the Ministry of Defence, are allowed to continue as members of the union of their choice and are not ordered into another—

Mr. Howard: We shall allow it.

Mr. Blair: The Secretary of State can confirm that when he speaks. If, however, he believes in the right to a free and independent trade union, let him grant that right to the employees at the Government communications headquarters, who have been denied it for the past eight years. Let him also take action against the Economic League, which prevents that right from being exercised by many people.
The Secretary of State gives a wholly misleading account of how check-off operates. Will he confirm that it operates only if there is prior written consent on the part of the employee—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I say to those below the Gangway that the debate takes place at this end of the Chamber.

Mr. Blair: Will the Secretary of State confirm that check-off already requires the prior written consent of employees and that, contrary to what he has just said, an employee can withdraw his consent to that at any time? Legally enforceable agreements formed the main part of the Secretary of State's original proposals. I gather that that issue has now been kicked into touch. Perhaps we shall hear no more about it.
The proposals are significant not for what they do but for what they omit. If the purpose of the statement is, as the Secretary of State says, to protect individuals against the abuse of industrial power, why does it contain scores of rights exercisable against trade unions, but not a single right to a British employee, male or female, exercisable for fair treatment by the employer at the workplace?
Why is Britain the only country in Europe that does not give legal protection to our 6 million part-time employees? Why is Britain the only country in Europe with no right to a minimum holiday entitlement? Why does Britain have the worst maternity rights, the fewest equal opportunities and the least protection against poverty pay? If the purpose is to protect the individual, why do we not sign the European social charter, as every other country is prepared to do?
The Secretary of State's proposals are not for the sake of better industrial relations but, for the sake of the worst prejudices of the Tory party. Can there be a more telling difference between the day when the CBI has confirmed the depth of the recession, unemployment is rising faster than in any other European country, we have a training and skills crisis, which the Government are making worse daily, and the fact that the Conservatives are returning to the agenda of the 1970s because they have no answers to the problems of the 1990s? That may have worked in different circumstances in a different decade, but in 1992 the people of this country look for something better. They will get it under Labour.

Mr. Howard: The hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) has huffed and puffed, but he has not told us the Labour party's position on a single proposal contained in the Green Paper. When I announced the Green Paper last July, the hon. Gentleman said that he would examine our proposals carefully. In November, I wrote to him pointing that the formal period for consultation was ending and I asked when we might hear his response to the Green Paper. I have heard nothing. This afternoon, he has treated the House to an extraordinary collection of half-truths and inaccuracies, but he has not told us the Labour party's attitude to the proposals that I identified in the statement.
On ballots, the hon. Gentleman quoted what one of the employers' organisations said about workplace ballots and its proviso that they should be properly conducted. There is always the risk with workplace ballots that they will not be properly conducted, which is why we think that it is

infinitely preferable to have postal ballots. The hon. Gentleman did not explain the Labour party's attitude to that.
On the protection of members of the public, the hon. Gentleman said that a case had been decided, but that there was some doubt about the position. If he agrees that the position is as we think it should be, why does he not say that he agrees with the proposals in the Green Paper, which we intend to put into legislation?
On the right of trade unionists to join a trade union of their choice, the hon. Gentleman seems to have forgotten that even Bill Morris, the general secretary-elect of the trade union that sponsors the hon. Gentleman, has said:
today when we are about choice and opportunity for the individual there is no choice in this matter or opportunity within them".
Ron Todd, the present general secretary of the Transport and General Workers Union, has said:
All I want, quite frankly, is the right for a worker to determine the union he wishes to join".
The hon. Gentleman is behind even the leaders of the trade union that sponsors him.
I can certainly confirm on the specific point that the hon. Gentleman raised that those workers who work at the Ministry of Defence can continue to be members of the union of their choice. That is the answer to the specific question that was put.

Mr. Blair: They can carry on as members of the TGWU?

Mr. Howard: They can certainly carry on. That was never in doubt. The dispute, of which much has been made, I regret to say, by some ill-informed members of the Labour party, was about recognition, not trade union membership.
On check-off, the hon. Gentleman said that we could not have that now unless individual trade unionists gave their consent. He is wrong about that, too. There is no such provision in law, and that is one of the things on which we shall legislate.
The most extraordinary feature of the Opposition's response has been the deafening silence of their principal spokesman in relation to the proposals. There are two explanations for that. First, the hon. Gentleman is terrified of saying anything that would upset his trade union paymasters; secondly, he is afraid to do anything that would remind the electorate of the chains that bind his party to those paymasters—the bosses of the trade unions.
When he is challenged about the Opposition's attitude to trade union legislation, the hon. Gentleman says that that is a matter of public record. It is indeed. The hon. Gentleman is on record in the House as describing ballots before strikes as
a scandalous and undemocratic measure against the trade union movement".—[official Report, 8 November 1983; Vol. 48, c. 210.]
The shadow Chancellor has described strike ballots as an "irrelevant effrontery". The Labour party has opposed—

Mr. Martin Flannery: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have heard nothing disorderly.

Mr. Flannery: The right hon. and learned Gentleman, Mr. Speaker, is making a second statement. He has already made a long statement, and you are letting him get away with it.

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is answering the questions that were put to him. If I cut him short, there will be complaints about that.

Mr. Howard: The Labour party has opposed every trade union Bill that we have introduced since 1979. Opposition Members have persistently evaded questions about their plans to repeal that legislation, but they have been more forthcoming about the new powers that they have promised the trade unions, including powers to force employers to recognise and negotiate with trade unions—

Several Hon. Members: On a point of order—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Allow me to deal with this, please. I do think that the Minister is going a bit beyond the statement now. He should confine himself to the questions put to him.

Mr. Howard: The lengths to which the Labour party will go to rush to the defence of its trade union paymasters whenever this issue is raised are remarkable. The truth is that it is this party and this Government who have consistently sought to defend employees and trade union members over the past 12 years, and that is what the country will bear in mind when we come to the general election.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Flannery: The Secretary of State's answer took five minutes!

Mr. Speaker: Please do not shout at me.
I believe that it is desired to deal with consideration of the Prison Security Bill by 7 o'clock, and we also have a 10-minute Bill this afternoon. I shall therefore allow questions on this matter, which I understand will require legislation anyway, to go on until 4.30 pm; then we will move on. I ask for brief questions, and I ask hon. Members to try to keep off party-political point scoring.

Mrs. Edwina Currie: Will the Secretary of State confirm that, had this legislation been in place in 1984, my constituents would have been spared all the corruption and theft in the National Union of Mineworkers and the harassment and intimidation in the strike that took place that year? Will he also confirm that we are in danger of all this excellent body of legislation being swept away should the Labour party win the general election?

Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Others will have noted the way in which Labour Members stormed out while my hon. Friend was pointing out the extent to which the rights of her constituents would have been protected had this legislation been in force at the time —and the extent to which those rights would be endangered if the Labour party came to power.

Several Hon. Members: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—

Mr. Nichol Stephen: There are—

Mr. Andrew Faulds: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: What is the point of order?

Mr. Faulds: My point of order is simple: have you, Mr. Speaker, no control at all over the misuse of the Government Front Bench that occurs when the nastiest man in Government abuses it every time he appears at the Dispatch Box?

Mr. Speaker: Unfortunately, I do not—[HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw".] I heard an unparliamentary word, and I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw it.

Mr. Faulds: Of course I withdraw the word, but the fact still applies. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask the House to settle down. It would be helpful to the whole House if we could deal with this important matter of trade union legislation in a non-party-political way.

Mr. Stephen: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My colleagues and I would agree with several points in this statement—for instance, in relation to balloting of trade unions, where the Secretary of State will be aware that my party was ahead of the Government with reform proposals. However, we are worried, perhaps most about the timing of today's statement, which was purely party political—an attempt to put the heat on the Labour party, with a motivation that is entirely negative.
That is to be regretted. My party would have preferred to welcome a fundamental reform of industrial relations in a statement that introduced greater employee participation, greater encouragement of employee-management buy-outs and more profit-sharing. The statement ignores all that. [HON. MEMBERS: "What is the question?"]
So my question is, does the Secretary of State agree that what is required is legislation and a statement from him to bring together the two sides of industry in this country and to encourage co-operation between employer and employee? Is not the motivation behind the right hon. and learned Gentleman's statement simply party politics rather than any deep desire to see both sides of industry engage in greater co-operation?

Mr. Howard: May I allay the hon. Gentleman's anxieties about the timing of the statement? Having issued a Green Paper in July and assessed the responses to the consultation in which we engaged following the publication of that document, we have a duty to the House to report the outcome of that consultation process to it and to make clear our intentions. That is what lies behind the statement. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government have taken unprecedented steps over the past 12 years to encourage employee participation and management buy-outs. Many of the matters to which the hon. Gentleman referred complement the proposals that I have announced.

Mr. Tim Smith: Is it not a remarkable fact that the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) has now apparently conceded that the industrial relations law reforms that have been introduced by this Government have worked? Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that they have been largely responsible for the huge


increase in inward investment in this country? Is it not right that we should build on that with the proposals that my right hon. and learned Friend has announced?

Mr. Howard: In my experience, one should treat any apparent concession by the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) with great caution. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend's second point about inward investment. Survey after survey has shown that one of the vital advantages that attract inward investment to this country is our new atmosphere of stable industrial relations and our strike-free record. We must build upon that to take advantage of the opportunities that will be available to us in the 1990s.

Mr. Ron Leighton: Is it not all rather sad and entirely predictable that, in the run-up to a general election, the Government are indulging in an exercise of union-bashing? As there is no time for any of this stuff to be enacted, is this not a wholly transparent and competely shoddy and tacky exercise in electioneering? Instead of looking to the past, why does the Secretary of State not look to the future and note that all successful industrial countries regard the trade unions as valuable partners with whom to co-operate?

Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman, who is sponsored by SOGAT, again asks about the timing of the statement—

Mr. Leighton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Howard: I answered a previous question about the timing of the statement—

Mr. Leighton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Secretary of State should have some knowledge of these matters, but he has said that I am sponsored by a union that does not exist.

Mr. Howard: I perhaps should have said SOGAT 82. The hon. Gentleman asked about timing, but I answered the question about timing that was raised by the hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Stephen) on behalf of the Liberal Democratic party. Each of the measures that I have announced today is designed to deal with a particular abuse that needs to be dealt with. The Labour party's Front-Bench spokesman was not prepared to deny that, or to say that his party disagrees with the actions that I propose.

Mr. Tony Favell: The hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton), with whom I have a great deal in common, has just suggested that we should look to the future. What would my right hon. and learned Friend think of the future if his Department was in the hands of somebody who has described a trade union ballot as
a scandalous and undemocratic measure against the trade union movement"?—[Official Report, 8 November 1983; vol. 48. c. 210.]

Mr. Howard: That is exactly what the hon. Member for Sedgefield said about union ballots, and that is the kind of future—[Interruption.]

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Not true.

Mr. Howard: Oh yes, it is all on the record. That is what the country could look forward to if the Labour party won the election and the hon. Member for Sedgefield were to occupy my office.

Mr. Spencer Batiste: Is it not clear that my right hon. and learned Friend's announcement will be widely regarded as a fair, sensible and logical step forward in our trade union legislation, and that many people will contrast it favourably with the chaos that would follow a return to the 1970s-style legislation advocated by the Labour party? In particular, will not the proposal to allow union members to join the union of their choice be a significant restraint on extremist trade union leaders who will otherwise face the mass exodus of their members to unions that more accurately reflect the aspirations of their members?

Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend, who has considerable experience of these matters, has correctly identified one of the advantages of that proposal. It is noteworthy that, while my hon. Friends have been prepared to comment and give their views on the proposals that I identified in the statement, all that we have heard from the Labour party is a generalised rant.

Mr. Stan Crowther: Does the Secretary of State not understand the simple point that giving people the right to join a union of their choice is meaningless unless the union of their choice has the right to negotiate on their behalf? Will he accept that most people in those circumstances would prefer to join a union with such a power? Why is he not introducing a provision that applies in many other European countries and that ensures that the union that represents, within a company, a majority of the people whose jobs are appropriate to that union has a guaranteed legal right to be recognised as the negotiator?

Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman, who is sponsored by the Transport and General Workers Union, confuses the right to join a trade union with recognition. Under the proposals that I have announced, any trade union member will be able to join the union that has recognition rights at that workplace. Increasingly, there are many other reasons why workers wish to join trade unions. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman does not recognise that fact.

Mr. James Lamond: As a Member sponsored by the Manufacturing, Science and Finance Union, I can tell the Secretary of State that many thousands of members of my union expect him to turn what talent he has to increasing employment—a far more important priority than this window dressing for election purposes.
I wish to explore a point of detail. Did the Secretary of State say that the members of a union should be allowed to decide for themselves whether the check-off system should be applied to their wages, because some of the money taken in check-off had never reached the unions? If that is so, the money must have remained with the company that checked off the wages. Even if employees decide to have this system, how does that protect them from the company stealing from the unions?

Mr. Howard: No, on the last point. If the hon. Gentleman reads the report in the Sunday Times of 8 December, he will see that there was no question of the money staying in the hands of the employer or of the


company on that occasion. It was diverted from the trade union for which it was intended. Therefore, it was diverted not by the employers but by those who collected it—those to whom it was entrusted by the employers.
I want to deal with the important point raised by the hon. Gentleman, that about jobs. Perhaps the most important contributor to an environment in which we can create jobs and employment in the 1990s, after the conquest of inflation, is the creation of stable industrial relations and a strike-free economy. That is what the Government have achieved, and that is what would be destroyed by the election of the Labour party.

Mr. Peter Viggers: Did my right hon. and learned Friend note the extraordinary contrast between the angry, non-constructive outburst by Labour Back Benchers and the articulate vacuum of the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) who, to paraphrase W. S. Gilbert, is a man who says nothing in particular and says it very well? Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that much of what has been achieved over the past 12 years might be at risk if we were to find ourselves governed by a party whose 233 existing Members of Parliament include 155 who are sponsored by trade unions?

Mr. Howard: I entirely agree. The hon. Member for Sedgefield is good at putting a covering of thin tissue over the raw nerve that is clearly exposed whenever Labour Back Benchers speak on that subject.

Mr. Alexander Eadie: As a Member of Parliament sponsored by the National Union of Mineworkers, of which I have been a member for 58 years —having joined it before the Secretary of State was born —I am extremely proud of its traditions and history. The right hon. and learned Gentleman's proposed legislation is neither an industrial relations charter nor an industrial relations Bill, but an anti-trade union Bill.
The Secretary of State flings charges about paymasters. In the shoddiest display that I have seen from a member of the Government Front Bench in 26 years, the right hon. and learned Gentleman is introducing a Bill on behalf of his paymasters. There must be a change of Government, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman and people like him must be defeated.

Mr. Howard: The Bill will protect the people. It will protect ordinary members of trade unions. I invite the hon. Gentleman to cast away his slogans and to consider the detailed provisions that we propose, which are designed to remedy specifically identified abuses. If the hon. Gentleman will do so, with his background he will recognise that steps must be taken if ordinary citizens and trade union members are to enjoy the protection that they properly deserve.

Mr. Graham Riddick: I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on extending real choice to individual workers, so that they may decide for themselves whether or not to belong to a trade union—and which trade union they join. Is it not the case that Labour has opposed every item of this Government's trade union legislation, and cannot be relied upon to look after the interests of individual union members?

Mr. Howard: It is certainly the case that Labour has opposed every trade union reform that we introduced over the past 12 years. This party and this Government will

continue to do whatever is necessary to protect individual members of the public and trade union members, so that they are not bullied and taken advantage of by those who have more power than they do.

Mr. Bruce Grocott: The Secretary of State made his statement today with the same air of intense sincerity that he adopted when he introduced the poll tax. Perhaps I may test the sincerity of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's statement that he wants to respect individual rights. Will he approach the Secretary of State for Defence, who unilaterally decided to withdraw Transport and General Workers Union negotiating rights from those employed at COD Donnington in my constituency—who, for the whole of their working lives, have served this country's defence industries through their work in depot security?
Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that it is entirely ludicrous for him to claim that he will continue to recognise the individual's right to be a member of a trade union when that union will cease to have negotiating rights? Will he approach the Secretary of State for Defence about that matter, so that we may see whether or not there is any sincerity in his commitment?

Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman genuinely misunderstands the position. There was a reclassification of the workers concerned, and the group into which they were reclassified is one for which the National Union of Civil and Public Servants traditionally has recognition rights. That union's general secretary said:
it should also be accepted that, since Ministry of Defence security guards are now regraded as non-industrial civil servants, NUCPS has negotiating rights in that area.
The workers concerned can continue to be members of the unions to which they have always belonged, but the logic of the reclassification is that the NUCPS should have recognition rights.

Mr. James Paice: The Green Paper that gave rise to today's statement also included the proposal that trade union leaders' salaries and perks should be declared, so that union members could see where their subscriptions were going. If that is still my right hon. and learned Friend's intention, does he agree that union members should also know just how much is being spent on the sponsorship of Labour Members, including all those in the elected shadow Cabinet?

Mr. Howard: As my hon. Friend suggests, it is still our intention to legislate on the basis of the original proposal for the disclosure of salaries of trade union officers. I did not mention that in my statement, because it has aroused little controversy or disagreement. As for my hon. Friend's suggestion about the sponsorship of Members of Parliament, it is certainly an intriguing thought; at present, however, we have no plans to legislate in that regard.

Mr. Robert Litherland: Do not the Secretary of State's attacks on the trade union movement, his manipulation of the television coverage of today's statement and the use of the race card represent the policies of discredited regimes? I am reminded of the 1930s. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is Dr. Goebbels incarnate: this is a squalid statement from a squalid Minister.

Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman, who is sponsored by SOGAT '82—

Mr. Litherland: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. There is no such union as SOGAT '82.

Mr. Howard: I am relying on the Register of Members' Interests for information about the hon. Gentleman's trade union membership.

Mr. Litherland: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is taking up time. I think that the House accepts that there is no such union, if the hon. Gentleman says that that is the case.

Mr. Litherland: Let me put the Secretary of State out of his misery. My union is the Graphical, Paper and Media Union.

Mr. Howard: No doubt that information will reach the Register of Members' Interests in due course.
The point about the hon. Gentleman's question is that, like other questions from Labour Members, it was couched in generalities—not very agreeable generalities, but generalities none the less. When will the Labour party address the specific problems that gave rise to the Green Paper and the solutions that we suggest are appropriate, so that we can improve the protection given to ordinary members of the public and ordinary trade union members? That is the purpose of our proposals.

Mr. Tim Janman: As my right hon. and learned Friend will know, today's announcement will strike a chord with the majority of the British people— hence the unreconstructed gibberish that we have heard from Labour Members.
Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that, towards the end of last year, thousands of my constituents were caused considerable inconvenience and distress by unofficial action on the Fenchurch Street line? The management of British Rail did not have the guts to do anything about it. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that his statement will offer hope to my constituents? Once the new laws that he proposes have been introduced, those constituents will have the opportunity to do what British Rail's management are too gutless to do.

Mr. Howard: My proposals would certainly cover the circumstances described by my hon. Friend. No doubt he will draw his constituents' attention to Labour's reaction to those proposals, and will make it clear to them that we, unlike Labour, are prepared to act to protect them.

Mr. Jimmy Wray: As a former trade union officer, I get the impression that the Secretary of State has never worked in industry in his life. I used to deal with union members who were on the check-off system, and not once was a check-off allowed to be taken from a person's wages without that person's express permission. Members also had the right to end the facility whenever they wished.
The Secretary of State suggested that money might not reach a union after a check-off system had been imposed. I challenge him to hand over his facts to the police: that would be fraud, and would bring not only employers but trade unions into disrepute. Because of Tory legislation, employers in my constituency are starting people but

sacking them after two years so that they are outwith the employment legislation, and then restarting them the following day.
If the Secretary of State is interested in the rights of workers, he should ensure that he is in favour of rights for every worker and does not merely attack the trade unions. In addition, he should get the unemployment down in my area, because it is a disgrace.

Mr. Howard: I remind the hon. Gentleman, who is sponsored by the Manufacturing Science and Finance Union, that it was a Conservative Government—

Mr. Mike Watson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Is it about sponsorship? I think that we have heard enough about that.

Mr. Watson: Is it in order for the Secretary of State to refer continually to the trade unions by which hon. Members are sponsored without pointing out that, like the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) who is feeding him the information, he is a director of one company and a consultant of two others? He gets paid for that, but we do not get personal money from sponsorship—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Sponsorship of all kinds is in the Register of Members' Interests. This takes up a lot of time.

Mr. Howard: I thought that members of the Opposition were proud of their links with the trade unions, but I was dealing with the point raised by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Wray). I remind him that a Conservative Government first introduced the right to obtain compensation for unfair dismissal, and he should bear that in mind.
On check-off, he said that, to his knowledge, employees —trade union members—were asked at, I think, regular intervals for their consent. That is not a universal practice. If that is a practice of which the hon. Gentleman approves, surely he will approve of this proposal to make it a universal practice and ensure that individual trade union members have the opportunity to give their consent at regular intervals. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that that is a good idea, why does he not support the proposal?

Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: rose—

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Sponsored by Lloyd's.

Mr. Oppenheim: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, just as the Opposition opposed every piece of this Government's trade union legislation, they will begin by opposing this legislation tooth and nail, but that they will then go rather quiet and perhaps do a rather shifty U-turn when they see how well it works, as they have done with previous legislation?

Mr. Howard: I am not as optimistic as my hon. Friend. When the Opposition pretend to do a U-turn, one is well advised to look at the small print. One then finds that there is an appearance of a U-turn but that the small print would take things back to what they were in the 1970s. That is the Opposition's position, and we must ensure that everyone understands that.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Does not the Secretary of State realise that today he has done a great disservice to the development of industrial relations by the nature and


timing of his remarks? Does he realise that, by moving from the Green Paper to proposals for legislation which he well knows cannot possibly be achieved in the lifetime of this Parliament, he is undermining the rights of trade unions? Why can we not have a White Paper which would include the possibility of considering trade union immunities, the rights of workers—women and part-time workers—and minimum earnings, so that we have an overall picture to ensure that industrial relations in the 1990s are not the victim of cheap electioneering by those on the Front Benches?

Mr. Howard: Surely the hon. Lady will agree that, having issued a Green Paper and received responses to that consultation exercise, it was right that I should report the outcome and the Government's intentions to the House. I had a duty to do that. If the hon. Lady is against such proposals as giving members of the public the right to stop unlawful action, against providing for seven days' notice of strike action and against giving individual trade union members the right to give their consent before money is taken from their pay packet, I can understand her hostility to the proposals. If she is not against those issues, she should support them.

Mr. Julian Brazier: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the measures he has proposed build on a long list of enhancements of the rights of ordinary trade unionists? To see that this is so, we need look no further than back to the miners' strike, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) referred, when the might of the National Union of Mineworkers was successfully tackled in an action started by one ordinary mineworker with all the legal assistance of the high street solicitor who conveyanced his house.

Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend recognises that all the great advances in this area have been won by individuals prepared to stand up for their rights. The purpose of these proposals is to help those individuals. That is why we want to take them forward.

Mr. Terry Rooney: For the avoidance of doubt, will the Secretary of State, accepting that there is another arena for party political broadcasts, tell the House what he thinks about the situation in which a majority of the work force at a single place, having been free to join any trade union, are in one trade union but the employer refuses to negotiate? What would the Secretary of State say to those employers, employees and trade unionists? What advice and legislation is he providing for them?

Mr. Howard: What I would say is that that is a matter for them to resolve and that when, in the past, attempts have been made to introduce legislation to govern these matters, they have been a lamentable failure. The provision in the Employment Protection Act 1975 that represented the last Labour Government's attempt to introduce such a right was repealed in 1980 at the request of the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service because it was found to be totally unworkable.

Mr. Anthony Coombs: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that these proposals are a sensible extension of the kind of legislation that, over the past 12 years, has buttressed the position of individuals, both inside and outside trade unions? Does he agree that

it is a gross indictment of the Labour party that it has opposed every single piece of industrial relations legislation which we have introduced over the past 12 years, and which have given us a strike record that is the envy of Europe and far below the European average?

Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend correctly identifies the difference between the two parties. It was Opposition Members who supported legislation that was responsible for the mob rule of the 1970s and the closed shop, with all its consequences for individual liberty. There is no point in the hon. Member for Sedgefield frowning: he knows perfectly well that that is what happened in our country during those years. It is from that fate that the Conservative Government have rescued the country.

Mr. Chris Mullin: The Secretary of State will be aware that Sunderland contains the headquarters of the North of England building society, whose employees have twice voted, in secret ballots organised by the Electoral Reform Society, to join the very moderate Banking, Insurance and Finance Union. On both occasions, the management have told the employees to get stuffed. Does the Secretary of State have any plans to give those employees any rights as citizens, or is this all a fraud?

Mr. Howard: I said a few moments ago that previous attempts to legislate on this matter had failed miserably. As a consequence of the legislation that I have mentioned, it was discovered that there is no workable way of providing rights of the kind to which the hon. Gentleman has referred.

Mrs. Alice Mahon: May I tell the Secretary of State that I am very proud to be sponsored by the National Union of Public Employees, and not by Greek fascists? Can he tell me how this statement will help the workers —trade unionists—at Coloroll in my constituency, who at an industrial tribunal won the right to more redundancy pay but 12 months later have not received payment because his Department does not have civil servants to process the claims? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell me where those people will get jobs, given the horrendous rise in unemployment in my constituency?

Mr. Howard: If the hon. Lady writes to me about the particular case to which she has referred, I shall certainly look into it. We have taken steps to try to ensure that the period for which some people have had to wait for redundancy payments is kept to the absolute minimum.
As for the prospect of those workers finding other employment, I hope that the hon. Lady will reflect that one of the best ways in which we can encourage the creation of more jobs is to create a strike-free environment. Our reforms have contributed greatly to the achievement of that objective. The legislation introduced by the party that the hon. Lady supports had precisely the opposite effect.

Mr. Dave Nellist: The Secretary of State describes the statement as aiming for the protection of millions, but is it not a fact that he is talking not about individuals and their rights but about the level of profit that employers make out of the weakness of trade union rights which almost 13 years of his Government have brought about? More than 200 Tory Members are sponsored by those employers.
The Secretary of State prattles on about the level of trade union wages. For almost 20 years, I have said that trade union leaders should, as I do, take only the wages of the average member they represent. The 200 Tory Members refuse year after year ever to declare the level of their directorships or their consultancy fees, and who pays them for what they say in the Chamber. The weakness of people's rights is not a problem caused by trade unions being too strong. The reason is that the powers of collective action have not been used often enough in the past 10 years to rein in the Secretary of State and his Government.

Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman's views are well known. I suspect that they are shared by a number of Labour Members far greater than the number who will own up to the fact. I fear that the hon. Gentleman's views would lead to consequences opposite to those which, I am prepared to concede, he genuinely desires.

Several Hon. Members: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am on my feet at the moment. I remind the House that questions to the Department of Employment may be tabled today for answer on 11 February.

Points of Order

Several Hon. Members: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: It will delay matters. I ask hon. Members to raise points of order—

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr.Speaker: Please sit down. I ask hon. Members to raise points of order with which I can deal and not questions that might have been directed to the Secretary of State.

Mr. Harry Ewing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My point relates to Prime Minister's Question Time. I do not know whether mathematics is one of your strong points, and I do not expect an answer to the point today, but you will have noticed that the first five questions to the Prime Minister on the Order Paper today were tabled by Labour Members. Can you explain to the House how it was possible for seven Conservative Back-Benchers to be called? Only the five Labour Members who had tabled questions were called. That is an almost impossible situation to create.

Mr. Speaker: I know that the hon. Gentleman is usually very helpful and I am quite good at mathematics. It is unusual for all the questions on the Order Paper to come from one party, and it does not help the Chair. The Leader of the Opposition asked three questions today, and a member of one of the minority parties was called. That is why Conservative Members were able to ask seven questions—[Horn. MEMBERS: "He is challenging your ruling."] It is not a challenge; I am giving an explanation. I say to hon. Members who shouted earlier, "Marginal constituency", that these days many constituencies are marginal. I seek to call Members who have not asked the Prime Minister a question this Session. Those who have do not stand quite such a good chance.

Mr. Ewing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: No more, Harry.

Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I know of your concern for the reputation of the House. So that there is no misunderstanding, would you, from your knowledge of debates and interventions when you have been in the Chair and before, confirm that, when sponsorship is involved —almost every time Labour Members asked questions, the Secretary of State for Employment responded "Sponsored, sponsored, sponsored"—literally not a single penny goes into the pockets of hon. Members? We are not ashamed of our involvement. I have been involved in my own union now for 40 years, and proud of it, but not a single penny has ever gone into my pocket, or ever will.
Will you also confirm that, in the case of hon. Members on the Government Benches, where there are business engagements, involvements and the rest—90 per cent. of Tory Members are involved in such matters—all the money goes into their pockets? That is the difference.

Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter for me to comment on, but all these matters should be declared in the Register of Members' Interests.

Mr. Terry Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Going back to the statement of the Secretary of State, I have no doubt that it is the presence of television cameras which persuaded him not just to make a statement but to wrap it up in such a way that it was like a party political broadcast. I do not think that it does the honour of the House any good whatever for a Secretary of State to conduct business in that way, and I think that you should use your good offices to restrain Secretaries of State who abuse the House as this Secretary of State has done.

Mr. Speaker: I am not responsible for whether or not statements are made. If the hon. Member feels strongly about it, it is a matter for the Select Committee on Broadcasting and he should draw it to the Committee's attention.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: And a final point of order.

Mr. Skinner: You said last week that you were concerned about balance and impartiality in the run-up to the election. You showed obvious concern, and we all understood. What I suggest is this. Can you make arrangements, to provide some balance to what we have had today, something which has passed its sell-by date, for us to have a statement, from anybody—we will do it on the Opposition side—which looks into moonlighting by 250 Tory Members and then into the Economic League and the Freedom Association? To top it off, we can look into the freemasons as well.

Mr. Speaker: I think that we will move on.

Animal Experimentation (Cosmetics)

Mr. Jimmy Dunnachie: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prohibit the use of animals in the development and testing of cosmetics.
The Bill would end animal testing for cosmetic purposes. I am asking the Government to give offical support to a view that is widely held by hon. Members and their constituents.
In the 1988–89 Session, more than 300 hon. Members from all parties signed early-day motions calling for an end to animal testing for cosmetic purposes. A recent survey showed that more than 50 per cent. of Conservative Members and more than 75 per cent. of Opposition Members supported such a ban. Some 85 per cent. of people interviewed in a recent opinion poll felt that this type of animal testing was unacceptable. That strength of feeling was reflected in last November's rally in Brussels, when 4,000 people from all over Europe protested against it, lending support to the 2.5 million-signature petition which was delivered to the European Parliament. Support from Members of the European Parliament was so strong that the Parliament is likely to recommend a ban soon.
At home, the Prime Minister was drawn into the debate when, in a letter dated 27 November 1989, he admitted to being a member of the Fund for the Replacement of Animals in Medical Experiments, an organisation that seeks to find methods of research that do not use live animals. He said:
The general public can play a very considerable part by refusing to buy cosmetics unless they are clearly stated to have been made without the use of tests on live animals.
What sort of goods are we talking about? It is not just colour cosmetics such as face powder, eye shadow and lipstick but a host of everyday toiletries. How many hon. Members could look round their bathrooms and recognise those products: toothpastes such as Ultrabrite, Colgate, Blue Minty Gel, Mentadent and Signal; shampoos which include Alberto Balsam, VO5, Cream Silk, Head and Shoulders. Timotei and Silkience; other hair products such as Harmony, Clairol, Nice 'n' Easy, Glints, Sunsilk, Free Style and Recital; Deodorants such as Mum, Fresh and Dry, Right Guard and Sure; soaps such as Camay and Palmolive; and items such as Pond's cold cream, vaseline, Ambre Solaire and Cutex nail products?
At Christmas, how many bought loved ones cosmetics by Helena Rubinstein, Vichy or Lancome; stocking-fillers by Studio Line; and perfumes such as Safari, Fiji, Anaïs Anaïs, Armani and Shiseido? How many bought Cachet, Rave or Impulse? How much Lynx, Denim and Polo aftershave was bought?
Those are only some of the brand names of companies such as Alberto-Culver, Cheesebrough-Ponds, Colgate-Palmolive, Elida-Gibbs, Gillette UK Ltd., Bristol-Myers, Proctor and Gamble, L'Oreal UK Ltd. and Shiseido—all of them listed among the chief offenders in the animal-testing stakes.
L'Oreal, for example, while claiming that it prides itself on
respecting…animals and avoiding any suffering and stress to them


recently kept mini-pigs in solitary confinement for 14 months while it exposed them three times a week to ultra-violet light to test for sun damage to the skin. What price now that golden suntan?
In 1990, in Britain alone, more than 4,000 procedures for testing cosmetics and toiletries were carried out using live animals—mainly guinea pigs and rabbits—to say nothing of the huge numbers carried out by parent companies abroad.
What sort of tests are we talking about? One of the most inhumane must surely be the Draize eye test conducted on rabbits, which are pinned down to have substances dropped regularly into their eyes to see if they blister or bleed. Rabbits are chosen, of course, because they have very poor tear ducts and cannot wash away the substances easily. In 1990, 300 such tests were carried out.
Another common test for skin irritancy is where a rabbit or guinea pig has its back shaved and a substance rubbed in it and it is held in place for weeks on end. Sometimes the rabbit's back is roughened up with hypodermic needles or sandpaper. Often, the results are cracked skin, blistering and bleeding.
Do we really need to use animals at all to test cosmetics and their ingredients. The answer is no. There are plenty of alternative and more reliable methods. Computer models, chemical models, reconstructed skin tests, the use of isolated skin tissues and human volunteers can all be used to test for irritancy, allergy, cancer risk and exposure to light.
Add to that the fact that animal tests are unreliable, and the justification for using them vanishes. Comparative tests carried out at the Huntingdon research centre using mice, guinea pigs, mini-pigs, piglets, rabbits, dogs and baboons showed that the tests produced different results on different animals. So how can they be expected to produce reliable results for human use? As Professor Salzbury, researching for Pfizer, said when asked to comment on the reliability of animal testing:
We would be better off tossing a coin".
At least there would be a 50:50 chance of being right.
There could perhaps be occasions when animal testing for medical reasons might be justified, so clearly a line must be drawn between products that are genuinely

medical and those that claim to be medical—just because an ad man sells them that way. I am thinking of all the claims made for the various toothpastes, for example. In the same way, the British consumer is all too often conned because there is no legal definition of the term "cruelty-free" and no dictionary of acceptable ingredients such as the one that operates in the United States.
As more than 8,000 ingredients have already been established as safe to use, I suggest that the only excuse companies have to use animal tests to extend that list is profit. I contend that the need to protect innocent animals from the clutches of such international profiteers is paramount.
The current European campaign seeks to ban any cosmetic product or ingredient that has been tested on animals, and Britain can give a clear lead here. Under the terms of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, all procedures must be covered by a project licence. Section 5(4) of the Act allows the Home Secretary discretionary powers to refuse to grant a licence where he feels the adverse effect on the animals outweighs any benefits that are likely to accrue.
I therefore ask the Home Secretary to refuse to grant new licences for animal testing for cosmetic purposes, as there are already plenty of ingredients available for new products and plenty of equally—if not more—reliable methods for cosmetic testing. At the same time, I ask the Government to give a legal definition to toiletries and cosmetics so that they may not be confused with medical products. I also ask that a dictionary of acceptable ingredients be compiled so that the British consumer is protected against false claims when buying cosmetics.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Jimmy Dunnachie, Mr. Don Dixon, Sir Teddy Taylor, Mr. Alan Meale, Mr. Phillip Oppenheim, Mr. Jimmy Wray, Mr. Gordon McMaster, Mr. Frank Haynes, Mr. James Pawsey, Mr. Archy Kirkwood and Mr. Norman Hogg.

ANIMAL EXPERIMENTATION (COSMETICS)

Mr. Jimmy Dunnachie accordingly presented a Bill to prohibit the use of animals in the development and testing of cosmetics: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 14 February and to be printed. [Bill 59.]

Orders of the Day — Prison Security Bill

Clause 1

OFFENCE OF PRISON MUTINY

Mr. Barry Sheerman: I beg to move amendment No. 4, in page 1, line 8, leave out 'two' and insert 'six'.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): With this, it will be convenient to take the following: amendment No. 5, in page 1, line 9, leave out from 'prison' to end of line 14 and insert
together use or threaten violence for the common purpose of overthrowing lawful authority in that prison.'.
Government amendment No. 7.
Amendment No. 8, in page 1, line 15, leave out subsection (3).
Government amendment No. 9.

Mr. Sheerman: It is with some pleasure that I rise to speak to the amendment, partly because the present Bill differs in important respect from that which entered the Standing Committee. Since the Bill came out of Committee, the Government have undergone something of a conversion to the views expressed by the Opposition in Committee and have conceded one of our main objections to the Bill on Second Reading.
The purpose of amendment No. 4 is simple. Under the Bill as drafted, the offence of prison mutiny can be committed by just two people. As I speak to the amendments, to which I shall refer by number, I shall be explaining that the Government have made an important concession. We do not underrate that concession but we remain unhappy with one or two aspects of the Bill and we hope to secure more changes in it before it completes its passage through Parliament. This is not the time to gloat but, being a politician, I feel that I must say that we told the Government that the Bill was imperfect and required important modifications. Our arguments were so persuasive that we attracted some allies from the Conservative Benches.

Mr. David Ashby: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that not only Opposition Members were responsible for persuading the Government, and that I may have played my part in the changes? I have some cause to gloat.

Mr. Sheerman: I take that point. The hon. Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby) and I will both have a little gloat and then get on with discussing amendment No. 4, the purpose of which is to improve the Bill still further.
We left the Standing Committee thinking that, if the Government made a concession, the first concession that they were likely to make would be that embodied in amendment No. 4. In Committee, the hon. Member for Leicestershire, North-West argued persuasively that the number of people whose involvement constituted a prison

disturbance or mutiny should be more than two. The Minister of State promised to think seriously about that. As the hon. Member for Leicestershire, North-West pointed out perceptively, if the figure is set at two, what two or three prisoners get up to in a cell could be construed as a riot under the Bill, and the 10-year penalty could be incurred. We were therefore somewhat surprised that the Government had not moved on the numbers question.
Today, we offer the Government an honest compromise of not 12 prisoners but six. It would be a very positive step if we could agree on six, which is a more sensible number than two. We argued in Committee that the number was too low and suggested that 12 would bring it into line with the offence of riot in the Public Order Act 1986, which also carries a 10-year prison sentence. The Minister was unable to accept that suggestion, but said that there had been forceful argument in favour of a lower number and that she would reconsider the matter. We have not heard the result of that reconsideration. Perhaps when the right hon. Lady gets to her feet she will give us some more positive news. Six seems to us to be the number that reasonable people trying to improve the Bill and to reach an accommodation could accept.
The reason behind the precise wording of the amendment is twofold. First, the notion that two people could commit such an offence in a prison seems far-fetched in the extreme. We have to pinch ourselves sometimes to remind ourselves that this Bill was considered necessary as a result of the Strangeways riot. The Government, again, got their response out of proportion to what had occurred. This was a crisis; a ghastly wave of prison riots and disturbances and the Government had every right to be concerned and to do something about it. But to do something about it in this particular way seems to us to resemble the personal imprint which the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State seems to have imposed on the Home Department.
We have a domestic crisis—it may be dogs one day, a prison riot on another, political refugees on another, the number of offences of taking and driving away cars on another—and the Home Secretary thinks tip yet another piece of instant legislation that he can whip through the House of Commons, because we do not seem to have much of a legislative jam at the moment. We have a small, speedy piece of legislation to react to every ill.

Mr. William Cash: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Sheerman: I will just finish my point; then I will give way.
A Bill comes to the House, goes to Committee, we get to Report, and in some cases deal with Lords amendments, and then the whole thrust of the legislation is changed. We saw it on the question of political refugees, with three major amendments, last week; we saw it in terms of the dog legislation; and we shall see it, I predict, in terms of the Aggravated Vehicle-Taking Bill We have seen it now, with a glitzy piece of legislation to get the press headlines. When the Bill gets serious scrutiny here, it is shown to be what it is—a fancy, rather than a serious, piece of legislation.

Mr. Cash: I served on the Committee with the hon. Gentleman and, before he got to the Floor of the House where a bit more attention might be paid to what he was saying, he made a number of rather reasonable and constructive attempts to improve the Bill in his own way.
Now, however, he is just trying to make cheap political points. He is implying that there is no real need for these proposals. He acknowledged in Committee, by the way in which he approached the proceedings then, that the Bill was necessary. It really is not good enough for him to try to make cheap political points. There is no substance whatever in the line that he is taking.

Mr. Sheerman: You are long enough in the tooth in this place, Madam Deputy Speaker, as I am, to know that a cheap political point on one side is seen as a valuable political contribution on the other.
In Committee, our job as Her Majesty's Opposition, very soon to become Her Majesty's Government, is to take these matters extremely seriously. We try to fulfil our role very seriously indeed, as we will when we are Her Majesty's Government. I would not be doing my job as Opposition spokesman on this issue if I did not give the general context of our resistance to, and our pledge not to go in for, short, sharp bits of legislation in every crisis. This Bill has to be seen in that context. Our job as the Opposition is to try to improve this legislation. The hon. Member for Leicestershire, North-West knows that. That is what we tried to do in Committee and what we will continue to do today. We do the work of transforming a nutty, ill-considered piece of legislation into something that does not disgrace the country or the Government.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mrs. Angela Rumbold): It is interesting that the hon. Gentleman persists in saying that this legislation has been brought forward rather quickly. I remind the hon. Gentleman that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary's predecessor proposed that there should be such legislation. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that this is not a reaction to a situation which has grown in a very short space of time. It is a well considered and, as I hope he will admit, necessary piece of legislation to deal with the situation within prisons. Without it, we shall not be able to achieve some of the other reforms that we want.

Mr. Sheerman: I do not agree with a word of that. The legislation is ill considered. It was seen to be necessary to do something in terms of Strangeways. The right hon. Lady knows the argument, but I will rehearse it for her very briefly.
An intelligent and serious response to the Woolf commission report would have been a thorough look at the way in which our penal system, under her Government, has fallen to pieces. Instead, we get a cheap-jack piece of legislation that deals not with the real problems but only with the superficial situation. The Opposition deplore that kind of legislative response.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Kenneth Baker): The hon. Gentleman is digging himself into a very deep hole. I must assist him, because it is cruelty to animals, almost. He has said that the Government have reacted irresponsibly in all these measures. We shall take the opportunity to remind the country, when the election comes, that the Opposition have tried to water down and reduce the impact of all the recent measures that we have introduced. He mentioned the Asylum Bill. His party voted against that Bill last week.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. We have had some pleasant exchanges in the run-up to this amendment. We must now get back to the amendment before us.

Mr. Baker: I will restrain myself from reminding the House about the Asylum Bill and about how the Opposition voted against the Aggravated Vehicle-Taking Bill, but I will remind the House that they have jibbed at the present Bill as well. They have always said that this measure is not necessary. I can assure the House that this measure is necessary to deal with unrest in our prisons, as my right hon. Friend will make clear in a few moments.

Mr. Sheerman: I have only one riposte, Madam Deputy Chairman—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have been very tolerant. We are dealing with amendments. The amendment stands in the hon. Gentleman's name and I hope that he will continue to debate it.

Mr. Sheerman: I will say only that the reason why we are critical of the Government is that they have failed, on the question of law and order, to bring law and order to this country. We want substantial legislation and substantial action, not these bits and pieces of legislation. Our people want to live in peace. The Government will not allow them to do so.
We are interested in the Government accepting amendment No. 4 to improve this legislation. It would change the numbers. We have rehearsed the arguments reasonably well and we have been joined by members of the Committee on both sides in asking the Government to consider this. It does seem to be an absurdity that only two people need to be involved for an incident to be deemed a riot, and we shall be pressing the amendment very strongly indeed.

Mr. Ashby: The hon. Gentleman knows that I argued for a larger number than two in Committee, but that was when there were subsections 2(a) and (b). Once (b) goes, we are left with this very strong offence indeed of overthrowing lawful authority. It is not just a minor matter; it is a very big matter. It is not the sort of thing that would be the result of just sitting in a cell; one does not conduct oneself in such a way as to overthrow lawful authority by just sitting in a cell. Prisoners would not just sit there saying. "Wouldn't we like to do this, wouldn't we like to do that?" What is required is unlawful conduct. In those circumstances, should not the number be as in the general law of conspiracy, where it is two or more for most offences? Because we have concentrated on a big offence, is it not time to drop the requirement for six, or four, or 12 and be content with two, given the enormous change of mind by the Government, which I gloat over because it was the result of my persuading?

5 pm

Mr. Sheerman: I thank the hon Gentleman for his intervention but cannot agree with him, because the small number is still a worrying aspect of the Bill. He put his finger on it extremely well in Committee, when he said that the Bill was a mish-mash. Sometimes one wonders about the Home Office. Obviously, the Home Secretary or Ministers asked for a Bill to serve a certain purpose. As we explored the Bill in classic fashion, what we found was a mish-mash between public order and the notion of riot.
The Bill takes from other legislation the offence of mutiny in the armed services. Every time the right hon. Lady got into a discussion on it, it became clear that the drafters of the legislation had never made up their minds whether the Bill was about prison mutiny or prison riot. In Committee, we tried to make it clear that the two were not the same. It might be applicable to say that two people in the armed services refusing to fire on the enemy as the enemy advanced were committing mutiny, because only two could be detrimental to good order in a regiment in a battle situation. That is understandable.
Can one imagine two prisoners running amok in a prison and causing a riot, whether they run amok in their cells or outside? That is the point on which the Minister failed to convince us. I still believe that the Bill could be improved in that regard.

Mr. Nicholas Soames: The hon. Gentleman is making a fair argument, but surely two prisoners engaging in a disturbance could quickly become four prisoners, then six and then eight. As we saw in the riots in Strangeways, these incidents escalate very quickly. Surely two is a sensible number.

Mr. Sheerman: Knowing his record on the Government Benches, I thought that the hon. Gentleman was intervening on the basis of being an expert on mutiny. He makes a fair point that two soon becomes four and then six. We say that the trigger number is probably more sensible at six, which can be identified more realistically.
We have had the concession from the Government in regard to two people doing something non-violent. On the other hand, two people acting even in an obstreperous way might fall under the legislation when their behaviour did not amount to riot, mayhem or disorder. We are trying to make a positive point.
The second reason for the amendment was given in Committee not just by the Opposition but by the hon. Member for Leicestershire, North-West. The number of people who can be guilty of mutiny must be higher than the number living in one cell. I hope that the right hon. Lady will come back on that. It would be wrong for behaviour in a cell to be caught by the legislation and to carry the maximum sentence of 10 years. Because of the cramped conditions in which three men may share a cell, difficulties can arise which should not fall foul of the legislation. We are offering a compromise in suggesting that the number be six. I hope that the Government will accept the amendment in the spirit that we are not tied to six, but think that two is too few.
Amendment No. 5 goes to the very heart of the difference between us on the Bill. We are trying to ensure that the offence of prison mutiny consists of actual violence or the threat of violence to overthrow lawful authority in a prison. It is a measure of the extent to which the Government have lost their way in the Bill that the Opposition should need to propose the amendment.
The Bill was conceived as a response to the appalling scenes which we witnessed at Strangeways and other prisons. No one denies that we should be protected from that mayhem and disorder and that public property should be protected from such damage. Those scenes were characterised by violent behaviour and enormous destruction.
It is such incidents which we are all concerned to eradicate and which concern the public. The original

intention of the legislation was to tackle just such incidents. However, that intention seems to have got lost in drafting. In Committee we were told repeatedly by the Minister of State that the Bill was dealing not with riot, which was what we were all concerned about, but with mutiny. I can refer the right hon. Lady to her words if she wishes.
In introducing the concept of mutiny from legislation dealing with the armed forces, the Government have changed the whole purpose of the Bill. As originally drafted, the Bill would have encompassed a wide range of non-violent protest, for which the draconian penalty of 10 years' imprisonment would have been inappropriate.
The Government's decision to accept in Committee the Opposition amendment to remove subsection 2(b) was an enormously important change and removed the part of the Bill which we found most objectionable. I do not have to repeat my welcome for that, but that welcome change did not go far enough.
The offence of prison mutiny can still be committed where no violence, or threatened violence, has taken place. When we discussed the matter in Committee, both my colleagues and the hon. Member for Leicestershire, North-West continually pressed the Minister to give an example of behaviour which would warrant an offence of mutiny in which no violence or threat of violence took place. The hon. Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames) may be interested to know that what we were trying to find w.as a non-violent offence that would fall into that category. I do not believe that anyone in Committee was convinced by the examples that the Minister gave.
The right hon. Lady found herself in enormous difficulty. We heard of improbable situations in which prisoners strolled into communications rooms and, completely peacefully, refused all attempts by prison staff to move them. We had examples of prisoners sitting down or not going back to their cells, or collectively sitting in a room because, according to the Minister, they were
disgruntled, unhappy and wish not to undertake to obey the lawful order of the prison."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 19 December 1991; c. 41.]
Those are incidents which occur frequently in prisons and which officers are trained to handle. That is their expertise. Such incidents are dealt with currently under rule 47.19 of the prison rules, which makes it a disciplinary offence for a prisoner to disobey any lawful order. Such behaviour does not warrant a 10-year sentence, nor is it behaviour about which the public is concerned.
As the hon. Member for Leicestershire, North-West said in Committee:
We should not allow the sort of offences that are dealt with under rule 47.19 … to be included here. We must be sure to draw a clear line between those two sorts of offences so that we can deal with serious cases such as those that we have seen in the past 12 months. I am not sure that the clause is very helpful. In every serious case that we consider there is violence or the threat of violence."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 17 December 1991; c. 35–6.]
It is absolutely necessary for the element of violence to be present.
It is the Opposition's view that legislation must be precisely phrased. Clause 1 is still open to abuse. It could be used for behaviour which is non-violent and simply does not warrant an offence carrying a 10-year maximum. Our amendment would ensure that the new offence was focused on the sort of behaviour about which we are all greatly concerned.

Mr. Peter Archer: Will my hon. Friend confirm that we are not concerned purely with the precision of the Bill? Lord Justice Woolf was concerned that the prison system should be part of the system of justice and that prisons must be seen to be run justly. Will my hon. Friend confirm that we are principally concerned that the Bill would mean that prisoners were treated unjustly?

Mr. Sheerman: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for bringing me back to Lord Justice Woolf and the principles that underlie the arguments that we made in Committee. I was taking that for read and also saving it up for my Third Reading speech. However, I happily concede that point to my right hon. and learned Friend.
I am delighted that the Government have decided to accept amendment No. 7, which we moved in Committee. At that time we received a frosty response to it. Clause 1(2)(b), which the amendment removes, was the most worrying aspect of this badly drafted Bill. The wording was vague and the type of behaviour that it encompassed was so wide that it could have covered an enormous range of non-violent protest and disobedience. To take the point that my right hon. and learned Friend has just made, it would have led to a feeling of injustice if it had been used for such offences. Tragically, it would have led to a reaction that could, ironically, have produced the very behaviour to which the Bill intends to put an end. Therefore, the words
collectively resist, impede or disobey any exercise of lawful authority in the prison in such circumstances as to make their conduct subversive of order in the prison.
required no intent to overthrow lawful authority and could have covered a handful of prisoners protesting about prison food, refusing to work, or being involved in a peaceful protest about their innocence. I shall not labour the point but simply welcome the Government to the world of common sense.
Amendment No. 8 seeks to remove clause 1(3), which provides that prisoners' intention and common purpose is to be inferred from their conduct. In other words, the mens rea or mental element of an offence does not have to be proved by the prosecution. I shall explain that provision under the watchful eye of my right hon. and learned Friend the Membet for Warley, West (Mr. Archer). In English law, it is usual for the prosecution to have to prove not only that the conduct took place but that the defendant intended it to occur or was at least reckless of the consequences. Under the Bill, there is no need to prove that a prisoner intended to overthrow lawful authority in a prison. That would be less important if the offence were limited to violence or the threat of violence, but the clause is still unsatisfactorily vague. It can still cover non-violent protest and, in those cases, the prisoners' intentions will be very important.
The amendments hang together, and their coherence is important. Our argument in Committee was a coherent response to the Bill. We said that, if that subsection remains in the Bill, other parts must be changed to compensate for the earlier mistake. By arguing that the non-violent aspect must be removed from the Bill, we argue that subsequent amendments must also be accepted. I hope that the Minister of State will see the clarity of purpose in our tabling of those amendments and wishing to hold them together.
5.15 pm
Although the problem would be less important if the offence were limited to violence or the threat of violence, the clause can still cover non-violent cases, in which case the prisoners' intention is not only important but it is vital that it should be known. Prisoners may simply be involved in a protest about conditions or alleged miscarriages of justice and the prosecution should have to prove that they intended to overthrow authority in the prison. To leave their intention to be inferred from their conduct is a recipe for miscarriages of justice.
Those are the main amendments that we have tabled. We feel some satisfaction that the Government have given way on a fundamental part of the Bill to which we objected. That is a major victory for common sense. If the Government would now see that the three other amendments are consequential to that major concession, we shall improve the Bill, if not this afternoon, by the time it returns from another place.

Sir John Farr: I wish to do what little I can to help my right hon. Friend the Minister of State to get the Bill on to the statute book. I was interested in the points raised by the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman). I am confident that the Bill is not just window dressing.
Gartree prison is in my constituency and most of the prisoners there are lifers and even multiple-lifers. The Bill has limited relevance to such prisoners. Whether two or six prisoners are assembled, whether they
use or threaten violence for the common purpose of overthrowing lawful authority in that prison".
or whether we accept amendment No. 7 has little relevance to life prisoners.
My right hon. Friend the Minister of State has always been frank about such matters and I hope that she will recognise that the Bill is tailor made to deal with specific problems. I do not see how life prisoners will be affected by any of the amendments. Will my right hon. Friend deal with that point? She may say that the Bill should not apply to prisons such as Gartree, in which case I recognise that there is a need elsewhere. It would have been improper for me to allow the amendments to go through without making that brief comment.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: The Government's concession in amendment No. 7 seems to call into question the need for the Bill. It changes the Bill fundamentally, and gave rise to considerable concern among prison governors about the damage that the Bill might inflict on prison discipline. To impose such draconian penalties on those who merely disobey or impede the exercise of lawful authority in the prison makes the Bill an obstacle rather than an assistance to good order.
As the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) said, the fact that the Government have withdrawn that offensive and dangerous subsection is a triumph for common sense, but that raises the question of what is left in the Bill. The Bill relates to circumstances that are adequately covered by the existing law on conspiracy. I am at a loss to understand why public order offences, coupled with the charge of conspiracy, are not considered by the Government to be perfectly adequate to deal with outbreaks of violence or the threat of violence, which leads to the breakdown of order of the kind that was manifest at Strangeways.
I have been driven to the inevitable conclusion that, in introducing the Bill, the Government were seeking a cheap headline. That was their response to the disturbances at Brixton and Strangeways. The introduction of such little Bills is a form of boutique shopping.

Mrs. Rumbold: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House how many prisons that he has visited recently have just experienced disturbances?

Mr. Maclennan: I have not recently visited a prison that had experienced a disturbance. However, just as the Secretary of State for Education and Science did not think it necessary to visit a single primary school during the first six months he was in office to be able to pronounce on education, I did not consider it necessary to visit a prison, particularly as prison governors are perfectly capable of expressing their views. In any event, their views are much better informed than mine, which are formed on the basis of a casual, short visit to a prison where a disturbance has taken place. Perhaps, unlike the Minister, I listen to what the prison governors say.
On Second Reading, I specifically asked what representations had been made by the prison governors, but the Minister patently avoided answering me. She must know that the Bill is extremely unwelcome to the prison governors because they see it for what it is—a cheap attempt to grab the headlines in the tabloid press to suggest that the Government are doing something about prison disturbances.

Mr. Soames: I must take exception to the hon. Gentleman's ludicrous line of argument. If he really believes in his case, he should make a much better fist of it. It is just possible that the prison governors, who are a very fine body of men, may be wrong. For many years, since the Prison Officers Association virtually took over the running of prisons, the prison governors have not been in a position to exert the authority that they should. For the hon. Gentleman to suggest that prison governors are not in favour of the Bill is plainly not true.

Mr. Maclennan: I took the trouble prior to Second Reading specifically to ask the Prison Governors Association whether it welcomed the Bill or had invited the Government to legislate. I was told that it neither welcomed the Bill nor had invited the Government to introduce it.
It is not a matter of asking me for my view. The Government have the results of the inquiry into prison disturbances under Lord Justice Woolf and we have also had the most authoritative prison survey in a decade from Her Majesty's chief inspector of prisons, Judge Tumim. Not one line of that extensive report suggested that draconian measures of the kind contained in the Bill were necessary.
I do not expect Conservative Members to pay the slightest attention to what Opposition Members say, but I expect them to pay attention to what their own chief inspector of prisons and their own inquiry into prisons said. There is not a whisper of support for the Bill, which I would call friendless, from any quarter that is knowledgeable about prisons. That is scarcely surprising. The Government have introduced an amendment to remove the offensive part of the Bill dealing with a non-violent situation. It is clear that there is nothing left in

the Bill that cannot adequately be dealt with by the present law on conspiracy or the public order legislation, which the Government recently went some way towards codifying.
The amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Huddersfield refers to a pretty vacuous Bill, which is more print than substance. It is unlikely that the Bill will be used a great deal. One must accept that if troubles occur that lead to the possibility of lawful authority being overthrown, they might have come about as a result of the action of two prisoners, or of fewer than six. I cannot see the logic in the suggestion that six is the right number to include in the Bill. Whether a conspiracy, as I would call it, has the potential to overthrow lawful authority depends entirely on the resources that are available to the two people.

Mr. Sheerman: The answer to the general principle of the amendment is the classic one that "a man's gotta do what a man's gotta do". I chose the figure six as a negotiating ploy. My view on that number is not hard and fast, nor would I be bitterly ideological about it. I am entirely pragmatic. We chose the figure six—we could have chosen another. The hon. Gentleman was not fortunate enough to serve on the Committee, but we had a general discussion and we chose that figure so that the Minister could go away and chew on it.

Mr. Maclennan: I, too, have a pragmatic turn of mind. The hon. Gentleman may allow the point that two prisoners could theoretically overthrow lawful authority in a prison, if they are provided with sufficient means of force. Two prisoners overthrew lawful authority when they escaped from Brixton. I take it that the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that it would not be proper to use the Bill in those circumstances. I do not think that it is necessary to use the Bill in those circumstances because there are common law and statutory law provisions which would allow those people to be prosecuted.
If the Bill is to make any sense—it makes precious little —it does not make sense to pluck a number out of the air, be it six, four or eight prisoners. Two prisoners must be necessary to establish common purpose and a figure of two or more seems to be right.
I agree with amendment No. 8 and I hope that the Government will accept it, for the reasons that the hon. Member for Huddersfield gave. I need not amplify them.

Mr. John Greenway: I spoke on Second Reading and I followed the progress of the Bill in Committee, even though I was not a member of it. The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) said that "a man's gotta do what a man's gotta do". I shall vote for the Bill on Third Reading and I will not require any help from the Whips to persuade me to do so. There is a valid argument in favour of the Bill.
I realise that on Second Reading much time was spent on the merits or otherwise of clause 1(2)(b). The Government are right to delete that paragraph because that makes the Government's intention much clearer. It was not the Government's intention to involve minor disturbances which perhaps would have been dealt with as disciplinary offences within the prison. We must recognise that some riots, such as that at Strangeways, were not spontaneous but the result of a detailed plan. Amendments Nos. 4, 5 and 8, tabled by the hon. Member for


Huddersfield, would seriously undermine the Government's intentions as envisaged in the Bill. The real problem—

Mr. Sheerman: rose—

Mr. Greenway: If the hon. Gentleman listens to my argument, he will begin to understand.
The point about the Bill is that it does not refer to riots or to violence. We should attempt to deal with the problem that, behind the scenes, as few as two prisoners with a great deal of influence on many other prisoners may conspire and incite others to commit an act of mutiny and riot, even though they themselves may not engage in violence or "use or threaten violence"—the words that the Opposition amendment would introduce. Those words would be superfluous at best and at worst would undermine the purpose of tackling those who might incite a mutiny in a prison. We are interested in not only the violence, the destruction and the act of rioting but the initial conspiracy and incitement. I hope that my right hon. Friend will confirm that the Government intend to deal with those elements.
Clause 1 leaves us with a serious offence—the "overthrowing" of lawful authority, which I read as meaning a breakdown of control by prison staff over part or all of a prison. That is what happened at Strangeways; we have to tackle the planning of that sort of riot. That is why I believe that the Bill will strengthen the law on prison security. Opposition Members failed to point out the provisions of clause 2, which increase prison sentences for prison escapers as well.

Mr. Robert Litherland: In Committee and in this debate, hon. Members have expressed their anxiety about the lack of definitions and lack of clarification of detail in the Bill. In Committee for instance, we discovered that a prisoner found guilty of taking part in a mutiny could expect 10 years' imprisonment or could be fined, although the fine is not specified. Ten more years to a lifer or a fine for a prisoner with no income is fairly meaningless.
The same vague definition is used to describe the number of persons constituting a mutiny—"two or more". The Bill does not explain how that figure was arrived at. Reference to "The Concise Oxford Dictionary" only enlightened me to the extent that the number of such persons must be plural. It refers to a body of people in revolt, and to soldiers and sailors, although not to other members of the armed forces. Regrettably, the dictionary, like the Bill, does not provide an adequate explanation, and I am left none the wiser. I am sure, however, that if approached the compliers of "The Concise Oxford Dictionary" would compromise on the numbers constituting a mutiny. If they would be so willing, why are not the Government? How can we possibly decide how many prisoners constitute a mutiny or a riot?
Strangeways prison is in my constituency. As we all know, the biggest mutiny in British prison history took place there. The tabloid press informed us that more than 1,000 prisoners took part. Certainly, to judge by what I saw of its aftermath, two prisoners could not have done all that damage. How could we take all those prisoners to

court? If they all got 10 years, that would mean 10,000 more years of imprisonment. In any case, how could we prove how many were responsible for inciting the mutiny?
I tend to agree with the Prison Officers Association that the Bill is irrelevant to attempts to end rioting. All in all, it will have little or no effect. I am not sure whether it extends to Operation Container, under which many prisoners are still held in prison cells in Greater Manchester—I hope that the Minister will comment on that.
The amendments introduce the idea of a threat of
violence. Such a threat was used at Strangeways and, to a lesser degree, in the copycat riots elsewhere in the wake of Strangeways. The amendments attempt to define what would constitute a mutiny, in the shape of a threat of violence for the purpose of overthrowing lawful order in a prison. That puts some meat on the bare bones of what the Government are trying to do.
In Committee, the Minister of State claimed that prisoners might argue about, say, the colour of their bread. On 17 December, she said:
It may be argued that it is unreasonable to say that a prison mutiny begins when people sit down and refuse to eat food; it only starts when the prison officer has said, 'Look here, Fred and George, it is high time you went back to your cell' and Fred and George have said, 'No, we're not going back, we're going to sit here for the rest of the night' … Does violence always have to be involved? A prison may be disrupted by a refusal to conform with the authority that is essential to control a prison."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 17 December 1991; c. 25.]
Does arguing about the colour of bread or continuing to sit down constitute a mutiny? The Bill is vague on that point.
By making such comments, the Minister does a disservice to the governors and men and women who run our prisons. There are daily protests about bad food, clothing and conditions, and governors and staff become expert at quelling such problems. They use subtlety and persuasion to cajole prisoners into conforming. There are peaks and troughs in prisoners' emotional behaviour and the staff learn to understand them. Trust is built up. If a governor thought that refusal to eat brown bread were tantamount to mutiny and called in prison staff to give evidence, what would happen to the trust between prisoner and officer?
No governor would react in the way outlined by the Minister. The training and experience of governors allow them to find ways of dealing with tricky situations without reading the riot Act. It is our duty to protect staff from violence or the threat of violence, which is why I support the amendments.

Mrs. Rumbold: Amendment No. 9 is consequential on amendment No. 7.
I begin by explaining why my right hon. Friend and I are more than ever convinced of the need for this piece of legislation. It is not only we who are committed to it; the previous Home Secretary also gave a commitment, as did the White Paper, "Custody, Care and Justice", in which we sought to reiterate our commitment. We have not yet received any comments from either the Prison Governors Association or the Prison Officers Association. We shall certainly consider such comments as soon as we receive them, but I repeat that we have had absolutely no comments on the Bill from any of the people running our prisons.
I suspect that, if there had been the strength of feeling against the Bill that Opposition Members suggested, those who are allegedly against the legislation would have submitted written arguments. The only evidence that I can adduce in this regard comes from a visit that I paid in the last couple of weeks to a prison that has only recently been built with taxpayers' money and at vast expense. That prison was wilfully and disgracefully damaged by young people on remand, who came from the same part of the country as the hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Litherland). Both the Home Secretary and I found that behaviour thoroughly reprehensible, and it is in no way acceptable to the people of this country.
I have absolutely no doubt that this is an essential piece of legislation, and that the removal from it of part of clause 1 will focus the issue. We seek to remove the objection which the hon. Member for Huddersfield had about the legislation at one point—that the provisions might "capture" those people who are not as violent or difficult as the young people at Moorland who were responsible during the Christmas period for the behaviour to which I have just referred.
To that extent, I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the way in which he has welcomed our amendments. I did not expect him to be capable of resisting the usual "Yah-boo, I told you so" reaction. That is too much to expect from the hon. Member for Huddersfield and, as expected, he did not resist it. None the less, it is important that we have established a clear and convincing resolution.
The Bill is an excellent piece of legislation. It will ensure that we have some redress against those people who think that they can act so disgracefully in our prison establishments, especially those that are newly built and in which we have emphasised the importance of making them more humane. We have heard enough about the importance of such establishments being humane. If we are to provide the humane establishments that I should like to see and to allow those who are responsible for running our prisons to have the establishment and discipline they need, we need this legislation on the statute book. The framework provided by the Bill is exceedingly important. I commend our amendments to the House.

Mr. Sheerman: The right hon. Lady has been most interesting. I accept her point and the kind words that she briefly passed my way. I am interested in the visit to Moorland to which she referred. Can she say, in a little detail, whether this legislation would have been used at Moorland in the recent disturbances?

Mrs. Rumbold: It would be injudicious of me to say anything about such a matter, because that raises a question about legislation that is not yet on the statute book. I have every confidence that, as soon as the Bill is enacted, the type of behaviour that took place at Moorland, about which people across the country will have read, will be addressed. I refer to youngsters who wilfully destroyed public property that was provided at vast expense and to behaviour that very much disadvantaged the young people themselves.
The Bill is therefore an essential piece of legislation. Even if it is not necessary to use the legislation, the very fact that it is on the statute book will prove an exceedingly important deterrent, because it clearly outlines the penalties that those who undertake such behaviour run the risk of incurring.

Mr. John Greenway: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be quite wrong for an hon. Member—let alone a Minister—to express a view on whether an offence should be charged in respect of the recent disturbances at Moorland or any other prison, given that clause 1(5) requires that no proceedings can be brought
except by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions.

Mrs. Rumbold: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I had not expected that I would necessarily be asked a sensible question by the hon. Member for Huddersfield. I was simply expressing a view that I know is widely held across the country about the exhibitions that we have witnessed not only recently but in previous years, when there was a disastrous series of demonstrations by inmates who showed scant regard for public property and for whether they were to be held responsible. Even if people are in prison, they have some responsibility for the way in which they conduct themselves.

Mr. Sheerman: The Minister is right. It is disgraceful that people committed to our prisons should then proceed to act in that way, whether at Moorland or at Strangeways. The Opposition are totally against such behaviour and the destruction of property. Such occurrences are dreadful, and we seek the most effective way of stopping them.
However, we also want to stop the other dreadful things that have happened in prisons under this Government. I refer to the two prisoners who left Brixton, almost by courtesy and through the back door. Only today we have heard that a mafia boss who was sent to Springfield prison for five years and who has drug connections at the highest level has walked out of there. We want such things to be stopped and for the Government to do that effectively.

Mrs. Rumbold: I am glad to hear that the hon. Gentleman is in favour of the Bill. That is the clearest declaration that I have heard to the effect that the Opposition deplore such behaviour and believe that some form of legislation is necessary. This is what we propose, so I hope that the hon. Gentleman will have no difficulty in accepting the Bill and that he will vote in favour of it when the time comes.

Mr. Soames: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, if the Labour party were to vote against the Bill, that would show what the people in the country already know—that Opposition Members are soft on law and order?

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madame Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. I refer hon. Members to the amendments that we are considering. This knockabout is all very amusing, but we are dealing with detailed amendments, which hon. Members should now address.

Mrs. Rumbold: I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I turn now to amendment No. 4.

Mr. Maclennan: I should be most grateful if the right hon. Lady could amplify Government amendment No. 7. When apparently answering the question about the circumstances in which the Bill might be used, the right hon. Lady said that she had seen malicious damage that had been carried out by prisoners on remand. Are we to


take it that malicious damage by prisoners on remand is to be considered an offence that may haul down the penalties for mutiny? If not, why did she even mention that? What is its relevance to the debate?

Mrs. Rumbold: I do not think that the hon. Member knows a tremendous amount about what happens in our prison system. My hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) gave a perfectly sensible answer to the hon. Gentleman's question.
I turn now to amendment No. 4, on which the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland and I happen to agree. It relates to the minimum number of people who could be regarded as committing the specified crime. It is interesting that the hon. Member for Huddersfield later said that the number that he had selected—six—is arbitrary—

Mr. Sheerman: It is a negotiating number.

Mrs. Rumbold: I see that we are going to play with words. It is a negotiating number. The hon. Gentleman gave as his reason for this the fact that a man has to do what a man has to do.

Mr. Sheerman: The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) asked me why it was that Oppositions tabled amendments, and I said quite honestly that procedures make us behave in this way. We table amendments because that is the way to improve a Bill. That is what a man, or a woman, has to do.

Mrs. Rumbold: I cannot resist it, Madam Deputy Speaker. You and I know that a woman has to do what a woman has to do. I can adduce one or two arguments for believing that it is not necessary for us to accept the amendment taking the figure above two.

Mr. Sheerman: Perhaps the Minister should go away and think about it.

Mrs. Rumbold: I did go away and think about it. The hon. Gentleman asked me whether I recalled that, in Committee, I had said that I would go away and think about this and other related matters. I did indeed do so, and I decided that introducing amendment No. 7 would be infinitely preferable to accepting a change of number. I did this because it is possible to believe that an officer might have difficulty in quelling trouble created by more than two people. He would probably have difficulty in quelling six or even five. We have to choose a number, and, as the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland made clear, going above the number of two does not make a great deal of sense. Therefore, I am not particularly attracted to the amendment.
A second and more fundamental objection is that raising the minimum to six would make it a great deal harder to prove a common purpose of overthrowing lawful authority, which is the crux of the matter. It is a stringent test to prove that two people had a common purpose, and an infinitely more stringent test to prove that a greater number than two had a common purpose of overthrowing lawful authority. As the hon. Member for Huddersfield said, this was a negotiating point, but I am afraid that I am not able to accept his offer of negotiation on this point.
Amendment No. 5 not only deletes paragraph (b) but further restricts paragraph (a) by requiring the use or

threat of violence before a charge of mutiny may be brought. When we discussed this in Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby), who sadly is not here now but who made a useful contribution at the beginning of the debate, was particularly concerned to limit the offence of mutiny to incidents involving the use or threat of violence.
Let me say immediately that I am almost certain, given my knowledge of what happens in prisons, that there will be an element of violence in the serious disturbances at which the Bill is aimed. In resisting this amendment, I am taking into account the fact that it can be very difficult to prove particular acts of violence against particular inmates in a prison and behind locked doors.
An incident may occur within a building where many inmates have barricaded themselves in. If, in spite of the evidence of widespread damage, it is not possible to prove the use or threat of violence against a particular inmate, this amendment would prevent any of those involved being successfully prosecuted for mutiny. I think that this is not what the hon. Member for Huddersfield intended.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale was anxious to establish the point that we are seeking to ensure that this serious offence is caught in future. A further point is that the ringleaders in the disturbance—those who instigate or orchestrate it—may not themselves participate in acts of violence. Therefore, it is important that they, who are as culpable as others, are not let off the hook. It is for that reason that I wish to resist the amendment tabled by the Opposition.
The hon. Member for Manchester, Central was particularly concerned about the number of prisoners held in Manchester in a container situation. There are now 200 people in the police cells in Operation Container. That is not satisfactory, and the hon. Gentleman knows that we are doing everything we can to reduce the number, particularly as this is both expensive and an unsatisfactory solution, given that we feel strongly that the prison service should contain such prisoners.
I understand only too well the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr). A prison such as Gartree contains lifers—people condemned to prison for a long time—and it is less likely that they will be impressed by an offence of prison mutiny that attracts a fairly long sentence. As he rightly says, those people are already in prison for a long time, so the deterrent effect of this measure may not be as great for such people. That is no reason for not introducing this measure so as to catch people on shorter sentences who commit an offence of this nature. I am sure that he will agree that it would be foolish not to pursue the Bill.

Mr. Litherland: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Rumbold: I should like to finish, because I have to deal with amendment No. 8, which would remove clause 1(3).
The first part of clause 1(3) provides that the intentions and common purposes of prisoners may be inferred from their conduct. This is similar to a provision in the Public Order Act 1986 in relation to the offence of riot. That too, as the House will be aware, requires a common purpose, and that common purpose may be inferred from conduct, as we propose here. It is not clear how prisoners' common purpose is to be proved if not by inferring it from their conduct. In the absence of an admission by the prisoners


Concerned, there may be no evidence of the formation of a plan to overthrow lawful authority, other than the conduct of the prisoners being consistent with such a plan. For that reason, we should be unhappy to see the first part of clause 1(3) removed.
The second part of clause 1(3) provides that the conduct of different prisoners may take a different form. For example, prisoners may act together in one part of the prison to overthrow an officer, while in another case, others may be in different situations doing different things, but acting in unison. Clause 1(3) as it stands provides that, in both situations, a common purpose may be inferred from the conduct of the prisoners.
I have looked carefully at the amendments tabled by the Opposition—Nos. 4, 5 and 8—but I cannot accept them. I hope that they will accept my reasoning and not press the amendments to a vote. However, it is rare for an amendment to he tabled in the name of both a Secretary of State and his Opposition shadow, as amendment No. 7 is tabled in the name of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley). Therefore, I commend that amendment to the House.

Mr. Sheerman: I felt discomfort when I first saw this remarkable juxtaposition of the Home Secretary's name with that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley). We believe that this is a major success. We have persuaded the Government of the error of their ways, so they have accepted amendment No. 7. It is interesting to note that the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) and others who spoke about the amendments never referred to that fact in all the clone-like speeches that they made on Second Reading. There was no criticism in that debate, but now they accept an amendment that drives a coach and horses through the Bill that we debated on Second Reading.
This has been an instructive process, because, after we asked and persuaded the Government, at the very last minute they are accepting a major amendment that changes the Bill's whole complexion. We shall push to Division amendment No. 5, but we are pleased to have converted the Government to common sense in respect of amendment No. 7, and we will not press the related amendments. I beg to ask leave to withdraw amendment No. 4.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed: No. 5, in page 1, line 9, leave out from 'prison' to end of line 14 and insert

'together use or threaten violence for the common purpose of overthrowing lawful authority in that prison.'.—[Mr. Sheerman.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 157, Noes 211.

Division No. 57]
[6 pm


AYES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)
Bell, Stuart


Alton, David
Bellotti, David


Anderson, Donald
Benn, Rt Hon Tony


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Benton, Joseph


Ashton, Joe
Blunkett, David


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Boateng, Paul


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Bray, Dr Jeremy


Barron, Kevin
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)


Battle, John
Callaghan, Jim


Beckett, Margaret
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)


Beggs, Roy
Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)



Campbell-Savours, D. N.
McCartney, Ian


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
McFall, John


Cartwright, John
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
McKelvey, William


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
McLeish, Henry


Clelland, David
Maclennan, Robert


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
McMaster, Gordon


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Madden, Max


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Crowther, Stan
Marek, Dr John


Cryer, Bob
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Cummings, John
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Dalyell, Tam
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Darling, Alistair
Martlew, Eric


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Maxton, John


Dixon, Don
Meale, Alan


Doran, Frank
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Eadie, Alexander
Morgan, Rhodri


Enright, Derek
Morley, Elliot


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Mowlam, Marjorie


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Mullin, Chris


Fatchett, Derek
Murphy, Paul


Faulds, Andrew
O'Brien, William


Fearn, Ronald
O'Hara, Edward


Fisher, Mark
O'Neill, Martin


Flannery, Martin
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Flynn, Paul
Patchett, Terry


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Pendry, Tom


Foster, Derek
Primarolo, Dawn


Foulkes, George
Quin, Ms Joyce


Fyfe, Maria
Radice, Giles


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Redmond, Martin


Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


George, Bruce
Robertson, George


Golding, Mrs Llin
Robinson, Geoffrey


Gordon, Mildred
Rooker, Jeff


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Rooney, Terence


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Ruddock, Joan


Hardy, Peter
Sheerman, Barry


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Skinner, Dennis


Henderson, Doug
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Hinchliffe, David
Smith, C. (lsl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)
Snape, Peter


Hood, Jimmy
Spearing, Nigel


Howells, Geraint
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Stephen, Nicol


Hoyle, Doug
Strang, Gavin


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Ingram, Adam
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Trimble, David


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Turner, Dennis


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Vaz, Keith


Kirkwood, Archy
Walley, Joan


Kumar, Dr. Ashok
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Lamond, James
Wigley, Dafydd


Leadbitter, Ted
Wilson, Brian


Leighton, Ron
Winnick, David


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Lewis, Terry
Worthington, Tony


Litherland, Robert



Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Loyden, Eddie
Mr. Frank Haynes and


McAllion, John
Mr. Ken Eastham.


McAvoy, Thomas





NOES


Adley, Robert
Atkinson, David


Alexander, Richard
Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)


Amess, David
Banks, Robert (Harrogate)


Amos, Alan
Batiste, Spencer


Arbuthnot, James
Bellingham, Henry


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)


Ashby, David
Bevan, David Gilroy


Aspinwall, Jack
Biffen, Rt Hon John


 


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Irvine, Michael


Boswell, Tim
Irving, Sir Charles


Bottomley, Peter
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'pto'n)
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Bowis, John
Kilfedder, James


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Knapman, Roger


Brazier, Julian
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Bright, Graham
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Knowles, Michael


Buck, Sir Antony
Knox, David


Burt, Alistair
Lang, Rt Hon lan


Butler, Chris
Lightbown, David


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Carttiss, Michael
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Cash, William
Lord, Michael


Chapman, Sydney
Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard


Chope, Christopher
McCrea, Rev William


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Clark, Rt Hon Sir William
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Conway, Derek
Maclean, David


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
McLoughlin, Patrick


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Malins, Humfrey


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Mans, Keith


Couchman, James
Maples, John


Cran, James
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Mates, Michael


Day, Stephen
Maude, Hon Francis


Devlin, Tim
Mellor, Rt Hon David


Dickens, Geoffrey
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Dicks, Terry
Mills, lain


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Dover, Den
Mitchell, Sir David


Durant, Sir Anthony
Moate, Roger


Dykes, Hugh
Monro, Sir Hector


Eggar, Tim
Morris, M (N'hampton S)


Emery, Sir Peter
Morrison, Sir Charles


Evennett, David
Morrison, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Fallon, Michael
Moss, Malcolm


Farr, Sir John
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Favell, Tony
Mudd, David


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Needham, Richard


Field, Barry (lsle of Wight)
Neubert, Sir Michael


Fishburn, John Dudley
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Fookes, Dame Janet
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Norris, Steve


Fox, Sir Marcus
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Franks, Cecil
Oppenheim, Phillip


Freeman, Roger
Page, Richard


French, Douglas
Paice, James


Fry, Peter
Paisley, Rev lan


Gale, Roger
Patnick, Irvine


Gardiner, Sir George
Pawsey, James


Gill, Christopher
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir lan
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Glyn, Dr Sir Alan
Porter, David (Waveney)


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Portillo, Michael


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Powell, William (Corby)


Gorst, John
Price, Sir David


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Raffan, Keith


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Redwood, John


Gregory, Conal
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Riddick, Graham


Ground, Patrick
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Hague, William
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Rumbold, Rt Hon Mrs Angela


Hannam, Sir John
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim


Haselhurst, Alan
Sayeed, Jonathan


Hayes, Jerry
Shaw, David (Dover)


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Hayward, Robert
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Shersby, Michael


Hill, James
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Hind, Kenneth
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Speller, Tony


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)



Stevens, Lewis
Waller, Gary


Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)
Ward, John


Summerson, Hugo
Warren, Kenneth


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Watts, John


Taylor, lan (Esher)
Wheeler, Sir John


Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Whitney, Ray


Taylor, Sir Teddy
Wiggin, Jerry


Temple-Morris, Peter
Wilkinson, John


Thompson, Sir D. (Calder Vly)
Wilshire, David


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Thorne, Neil
Winterton, Nicholas


Thurnham, Peter
Wood, Timothy


Townend, John (Bridlington)
Yeo, Tim


Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Trippier, David



Twinn, Dr lan
Tellers for the Noes:


Waldegrave, Rt Hon William
Mr. Tom Sackville and


Walker, Bill (T'side North)
Mr. Timothy Kirkhope.

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendments made: No. 7, in page 1, line 11, leave out from 'prison' to end of line 14.

No. 9, in page 1, line 18, leave out 'paragraph (a) or (b) of,—[Mrs. Rumbold.]

Mr. David Trimble: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 2, line 3, at end insert 'or the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland under the Prison Act (Northern Ireland) 1953.'.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this we may take the following amendments: No. 2, in clause 2, page 2, line 22, at end insert—
'(4) In section 33 of the Prison Act (Northern Ireland) 1953 (offence of assisting escape by conveying things into prisons) after the word "prisoner", in the second place where it occurs, there shall be inserted the words "sends anything (by post or otherwise) into a prison or to a prisoner" and for the words "seven years" there shall be substituted the words "ten years".
(5) In section 30 of the Prison Act (Northern Ireland) 1953 (offence of rescue or assisting other prisoners) for the words "five years" there shall be substituted the words "ten years".'.
No. 3, in clause 3, page 2, line 28, leave out 'and Wales only' and add ', Wales and Northern Ireland'.

Mr. Trimble: On Second Reading, I asked why a measure that had been described as important and necessary, given the situation that had arisen in prisons in England and Wales, should not be extended to Northern Ireland, where the situation is equally serious. I asked the same question in Committee; on neither occasion was I given an answer.
Since then an answer has arrived, in the form of a letter from the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office. I received the letter yesterday afternoon; I believe that other hon. Members who served on the Committee with me received copies earlier this afternoon. I feel that I should put on record the reasons given by the Minister for not extending the legislation to Northern Ireland. The letter states:
When the issue was raised with us last June, Peter Brooke and John Belstead gave very careful consideration to the possibility of extension but concluded that, while there were arguments in favour of the introduction of a similar offence (among which was that of the difficulty of sustaining prosecutions for some offences committed during a mutiny or an escape attempt) extension of the Bill to Northern Ireland was neither necessary nor desirable.
We have not, of course, faced a similar situation to that experienced in some English prisons in the early 1990s and Peter Brooke further believed that to introduce such a provision without that background would do nothing to enhance public support for the NI Prison Service and confidence in the strategy for the service which had been launched at that time.


I have noted your reference to the paramilitary campaign for segregation in HM Prison, Belfast and to the explosion which resulted in the deaths of two prisoners. Tragic as this last incident was I have to say that I do not accept that it could be considered as mutiny. But even if it could, those involved would almost certainly be charged with murder and other very serious offences for which the penalties exceed that provided for mutiny in the Prison Security Bill. Similarly, it is our view that Prison rules and the criminal law already provide adequate sanctions for the other offences which have been committed in the Prison.
6.15 pm
The Minister says that the murder of two prisoners in the Crumlin road prison was not mutiny. That may be true of the specific event, but the specific event marked the end of a series of events which undoubtedly involved an intention to overthrow lawful authority within the prison.
I was interested to hear the Minister of State, Home Office mention recent disturbances in Moorland in a previous debate, and cite the scant regard for the public property that those disturbances involved as a reason for the legislation. Let me remind her that the campaign in Crumlin road prison also involved considerable destruction of public property.
That prison may not yet have experienced a riot on the scale of the Strangeways disturbances; but the wrecking of the dining hall a few months ago is just one of many incidents there that demonstrate a clear disregard for public property. I had the doubtful pleasure of touring the Crumlin road prison last Monday, and I saw plenty of evidence of that. I do not think that we have been given sufficient ground for deeming Northern Ireland's circumstances to be different.
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office made a significant concession in his letter when he referred to
the difficulty of sustaining prosecutions for some offences committed during a mutiny or an escape attempt".
That is surely an argument in favour of extending the legislation. We are left with the contrary argument that
to intoduce such a provision … would do nothing to enhance public support for the … Prison Service.
That is an argument based on expediency.
The present truce in the Crumlin road prison will last until Lord Colville reports, but it will not endure beyond then. After the report, there is likely to be further trouble, perhaps on a substantial scale: there are plenty of scores still to be settled in that prison. During the current lull before the storm, one wonders what impression the Government's present conduct will make. They say that the Bill is necessary to deal with the situation in England; the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland says, "It may be necessary, but I am scared of the effect that it will have on some sections of opinion in Northern Ireland."
What message will such a weak-kneed approach send to terrorist organisations in Northern Ireland? In the present circumstances, it is likely to lead them to believe that they can plan their mutinies with relative impunity.
Amendment No. 2 deals with quite a narrow point. Clause 2 of the Bill plugs a gap in section 39 of the Prison Act 1952, to ensure that items sent to a prison by post—

Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: Or otherwise.

Mr. Trimble: I thank the hon. Gentleman. The aim is to ensure that items sent to a prison by post or otherwise will fall within the definition of assisting a prisoner to escape. That is clearly based on events in Brixton prison.
The point was made in Committee—notably by the hon. Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr)—that it was illogical that the Bill should not cover Northern Ireland, especially when one realises that a prisoner in London receiving a parcel from Belfast would be covered by the Bill but that the sender would not. Therefore, it is illogical to extend section 39 of the Prison Act 1952 while not making an equivalent extension to the Prison Act (Northern Ireland) Act 1953.
The Northern Ireland Office said in its letter:
So far as the point about the posting into a prison of a parcel in relation to clause 2(1)(a) is concerned, the particular problem does not arise because of the wording of the parallel offence in section 33 of the Prison Act (Northern Ireland) 1953.
I shall deal with that point in detail.
Section 39 of the English Act states:
Any person who aids any prisoner in escaping or attempting to escape from a prison or who, with intent to facilitate the escape of any prisoner, conveys any thing into a prison or to a prisoner or places any thing anywhere outside a prison with a view to its coming into the possession of the prisoner, shall be guilty".
The existing section refers to "conveying" and "placing". It is evident that the Home Office believed that conveying and placing did not include posting. That is a reasonable view, and it is why the Government are amending section 39 so that it includes posting.
The Northern Ireland Office says that the different wording of section 33 of the Northern Ireland Act obviates the need for a similar amendment, but let us consider section 33 of that Act:
Any person who, with intent to facilitate the escape of any prisoner, conveys or throws or causes to be conveyed or thrown any thing into any prison or to a prisoner or places or throws or causes to be placed or thrown any thing anywhere inside or outside a prison with a view to its coming into the possession of a prisoner shall be guilty".
The section of the Northern Ireland Act also refers to "conveys" as does section 39 of the English Act, but the only thing that it adds to section 39 is "throwing". Is throwing posting? I suppose that one throws things into letter boxes but throwing cannot be regarded as posting.
Therefore, if section 39 of the English Act does not include posting, which seems reasonable, section 33 of the Northern Ireland Act certainly does not include posting. If section 39 is amended to make express reference to posting as the Government propose, any court considering that is bound to say that Parliament has clearly expressed the opinion that the words "conveying" and "placing" in section 39 do not include posting, and, if "conveying" and "placing" in section 39 do not include posting, then conveying, placing and throwing in section 33 cannot include posting. There is a clear gap, and the obvious way to remedy it is to accept amendment No. 2.
I fear that the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office has been poorly advised about the wording of the legislation. When it is examined, it is clear that the Northern Ireland Office's argument does not hold water. I hope that the amendment will be accepted. If not, I shall divide the House, and I advise Conservative hon. Members that, if they vote against the amendment, they will be voting against the clause in the Bill.

Sir John Farr: I support the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) and congratulate him on his initiative and on his perseverance. As he said, he raised this issue—very ably—in Committee, and, like me, on Second Reading.
For many years, there has been an unfortunate habit, which seems to be dying, of having separate legislation for the mainland, thus separating the needs of Northern Ireland, instead of dealing with them all under United Kingdom legislation. We have increasingly given way to the temptation to have legislation that deals only with Great Britain.
As hon. Members will be aware, this is not the first time that matters of such gravity have been discussed in relation to Northern Ireland. I have heard hon. Members of all parties repeat that there are many reasons why we should move towards legislation covering the whole of the United Kingdom—in other words, Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
One reason is the common-sense reason which, I have found, never appeals to Governments. Apart from that reason, there was a case last summer which involved trainers sent in a parcel from Belfast to a London prison —Wandsworth, I think. Unbelievably, the parcel contained a firearm which was used seriously to injure a prison officer. Even more importantly, it enabled two vicious IRA killers to escape. If only common sense had applied in the past. I am not saying that it would have affected that incident but I should have thought that, faced with that glaring example, some of my hon. Friends, although they may have been reluctant to accept it, would have seen the common-sense solution which is crying out to be adopted in the Bill.
The three amendments which go together are a case of shutting the stable door after the horse has gone. Nevertheless, if we can persuade the Government to accept them as a group, it would make it more difficult for anyone attempting to send a parcel of, for example, trainers from Belfast to the mainland to do so without being caught, because the legislation would be tighter.
As I said, the hon. Member for Upper Bann and I raised the issue on Second Reading and in Committee. I also had access—I dare say that the hon. Gentleman had similar access—to the Home Office. I asked how we could ensure that the common-sense amendments were accepted. The advice that I received through the official channels was that getting sensible amendments accepted in this case—I am talking about United Kingdom legislation, not merely Great Britain or Northern Ireland legislation—had nothing to do with the Home Secretary, but apparently the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland held a different view.
I was advised by the authorities to table questions to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, which I have done unsucessfully. Since the introduction of the Bill, I have not been reached in the ballot on Northern Ireland questions. The written replies that I received are wholly ineffective, because they say that the suggestion is not appropriate.
I reinforce what the hon. Member for Upper Bann said. It is not a case of treating Northern Ireland citizens as second-class citizens or anything so silly, but for years some of us have been saying that the more we can associate mainland legislation with United Kingdom legislation—including Northern Ireland—the more sensible it is likely to be in the first place. That applies to this Bill, which would be more likely to be generally acceptable to the

public if the amendment were adopted. I have pleasure in supporting what the hon. Member for Upper Bann has said.

Mr. Dickens: I do not wish to detain the House for very long, as hon. Members will want to hear the Minister's reply. However, I must congratulate the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) on the way in which he moved this amendment. I suspect that the Minister of State has a duty to see that the Bill goes through unamended, but I have tremendous sympathy for the Northern Ireland Members who have brought this amendment forward.
Those who say that a few people in Northern Ireland will be upset if we increase the sentence from seven years to 10 for the purpose of achieving even-handedness vis-a-vis England and Wales do not have a very good argument. The people of Northern Ireland have had their hearts torn out. They must have cried a million tears. The graveyards are full. I do not want to be too emotional, but I must say that what is proposed would not cause any great alarm. I do not think that the people of Northern Ireland would be too fussy about it. In fact, they would be very pleased indeed if the British Parliament—they are as British as we are—were to demonstrate even-handedness between Northern Ireland and England and Wales. That would be a sensible course of action.
However, the Minister of State replying to this debate is not a Northern Ireland Minister and may therefore be in a difficult position. That I understand, but it would be very nice if she were to go at least as far as to say that the matter will be given further very serious consideration, with a view to achieving even handedness. If such an assurance were given, the Northern Ireland Members might consider not forcing the matter to a Division.
I have sympathy with their argument. I do not see the situation from the point of view of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, as expressed in the letter from which the hon. Gentleman quoted. I congratulate the Northern Ireland Members and my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr) on tabling such a sensible and reasonable amendment, which would not upset many people in Northern Ireland and would please most of them.

Mrs. Rumbold: The hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) has reiterated his view that the provisions of this Bill should apply to establishments in Northern Ireland in exactly the same way as they are intended to apply to establishments in England and Wales. I was very interested in the contributions of my hon. Friends the Members for Harborough (Sir J. Farr) and for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens). I am quite sure that those contributions, as well as that of the hon. Member for Upper Bann, will be read carefully by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. Indeed, my right hon. Friend has already considered the amendments tabled by the hon. Gentleman, and his view, which I share, is that the provisions of the Bill should not extend to Northern Ireland.
As the hon. Member for Upper Bann has explained, this Bill dealing with the situation in England and Wales was introduced as a direct response to the disturbances that we witnessed in 1990 and to the more recent ones at Moorland and Brinsford at the end of last year. For whatever reason, a number of prisoners in England and


Wales have been determined—and have demonstrated their determination—to cause very great destruction. The Bill is aimed directly at such behaviour.
We heard that the hon. Member for Upper Bann had recently visited Her Majesty's prison, Belfast and had seen disturbances there. He said that he had seen evidence of behaviour similar to that which we have witnessed in prisons in this country. I am informed that the disturbances and incidents that took place in Belfast prison consisted of assaults, either by individual prisoners or by small groups of prisoners, on other prisoners or on staff. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland does not accept that these incidents constitute mutiny or have the common purpose of overthrowing lawful authority.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: I have not made a speech, but, in the main, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens). The House will understand my hon. Friend's point. The assumption seems to be that, as these events occurred in Great Britain, there is a need for this law in Great Britain but that, as such events have not yet occurred in Northern Ireland, there is not yet a need for it in Northern Ireland. I am grateful for the courtesy that the Minister of State has shown to the House, but I have to say that it would make sense if the Government were to reconsider this matter before the Bill is debated in another place. The introduction of a provision of this sort should not come after a mutiny.

Mrs. Rumbold: I am well aware of the constitutional point that my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) sensibly makes. I am sure he will understand that there has been considerable consultation with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, and I am sure that the report of this debate will be drawn to my right hon. Friend's attention.
However, my right hon. Friend advises me that a situation similar to the current situation in this country —which is the reason for our introduction of this legislation—does not exist in Northern Ireland. Hon. Members will say that there have been some serious incidents in Northern Ireland, but, in the view of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, there is no evidence that prisons there are in a state of mutiny, as some of ours undoubtedly have been in the past two years.
I accept the point made by the hon. Member for Upper Bann that, while such a situation has not arisen, it could arise in the future, however, at present there is no need to introduce in Northern Ireland a criminal offence of mutiny. To do so without a background of disturbances would apparently only damage the community's confidence in the prison system in the Province.
Mutiny is already a disciplinary offence under the Northern Ireland prison rules, and carries a maximum penalty of 180 days' loss of remission, or the equivalent of a 12-month sentence. That is a penalty to which we do not have access in respect of the prisons in England and Wales.
With regard to escape-related offences, there are already many differences between the Northern Ireland legislation and the legislation that applies in England and Wales. Some offences under the Northern Ireland prisons legislation do not appear in the Criminal Justice Act 1982.

Sir Alan Glyn: If this is a united Kingdom, the law in Northern Ireland should be the same as that in England and Wales, whatever the consequences. I realise that there are reasons for the approach that my hon. Friend the Minister of State is adopting, but I hope that she will convey the feelings of hon. Members, including many on the Government side, to her right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

Mrs. Rumbold: Again, I fully understand the constitutional point that my hon. Friend makes, but, in respect of legislation and administration, there are a number of differences between Northern Ireland on the one hand and England and Wales on the other. These are accepted and respected on all sides of the House. There are many differences in respect of penalties. For example, in England and Wales, offences of escape, rescue and prison breach are dealt with under common law, and there is therefore no maximum penalty. In Northern Ireland, those are statutory offences, carrying fixed maximum penalties of three, seven and seven years respectively. It would not be right in this Bill to make piecemeal amendments to the Northern Ireland legislation.
If amendment No. 2 were accepted, the hon. Member for Upper Bann would have created a far greater and odder discrepancy in sentencing powers that those of which he complains today. There would be a maximum penalty of 10 years' imprisonment for assisting the escape of a prisoner serving a term of less than life imprisonment but a maximum of only seven years for assisting the escape of a prisoner sentenced to life imprisonment. That cannot be sensible.
I note the views of the hon. Member for Upper Bann on amendment No. 2. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is not convinced that such an amendment is needed to make sending a gun into a prison in Northern Ireland by post an offence. Section 33 of the Prison Act (Northern Ireland) 1953, which is different from legislation on the comparable offence in England and Wales, uses the words:
Any person who, with intent to facilitate the escape of any prisoner, conveys or throws or causes to be conveyed".
We believe that "causes to be conveyed" are the essential and relevant words which include the matter of posting. We are therefore not convinced that there is a need to bring the penalties for escape-related offences in Northern Ireland in line with the proposed new penalties in England and Wales. We do not consider that amendment No. 2 is necessary. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in this instance. With respect, I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Trimble: I thank Conservative Members who have spoken in support of the amendments, which I very much appreciate. Their support for the amendments is a recognition that the amendments are sensible. I am sorry that the Minister has had to speak from a brief with which the Northern Ireland Office has supplied her. Her suggestion that the circumstances at Her Majesty's prison in Crumlin road do not fall within the concept of prison mutiny is unsustainable. I wish that there was more time available to elaborate on that point. The advice that the Minister has received from the Northern Ireland Office leaves one with the conviction that the Northern Ireland Office is not in Belfast, but in cloud cuckoo land.
The Minister will recall that I set out in detail the terms of section 39 of the Prison Act 1952 and of section 33 of the Prison Act (Northern Ireland) 1953. I clearly demonstrated the close similarity between the two. The Northern Ireland Office claims that section 33 of the Northern Ireland Act is different. I was amused to hear that the phrase that the Northern Ireland Office picks on as different is the phrase "causes to be conveyed". It says that "conveyed" in the Northern Ireland legislation includes posting. If that is so, what does the Northern Ireland Office say about the word "conveys" in the English legislation? In the view of the Home Office, that clearly does not include posting, because it would not otherwise have included clause 2 in the Bill. The argument does not hold water.
I intend to press amendment No. 2 to a Division. However, I beg to ask leave to withdraw amendment No. 1.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 2

OFFENCES RELATING TO ESCAPE

Amendment proposed: No. 2, in page 2, line 22, at end insert—
'(4) In section 33 of the Prison Act (Northern Ireland) 1953 (offence of assisting escape by conveying things into prisons) after the word "prisoner", in the second place where it occurs, there shall be inserted the words "sends anything (by post or otherwise) into a prison or to a prisoner" and for the words "seven years" there shall be substituted the words "ten years".
(5) In section 30 of the Prison Act (Northern Ireland) 1953 (offence of rescue or assisting other prisoners) for the words "five years" there shall be substituted the words "ten years".'. — [Mr. Trimble.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 5, Noes 211.

Division No. 58]
[6.42 pm


AYES


Farr, Sir John



Kilfedder, James
Tellers for the Ayes:


McCrea, Rev William
Mr. James Molyneaux and


Paisley, Rev lan
Mr. Roy Beggs.


Trimble, David





NOES


Adley, Robert
Bottomley, Peter


Alexander, Richard
Bowden, A. (Brighton K'pto'n)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)


Alton, David
Bowis, John


Amess, David
Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard


Amos, Alan
Bright, Graham


Arbuthnot, James
Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Browne, John (Winchester)


Ashby, David
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Buck, Sir Antony


Aspinwall, Jack
Burt, Alistair


Atkinson, David
Butler, Chris


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)


Batiste, Spencer
Carlisle, John, (Luton N)


Bellingham, Henry
Carttiss, Michael


Bellotti, David
Chapman, Sydney


Bendall, Vivian
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Clark, Rt Hon Sir William


Bevan, David Gilroy
Conway, Derek


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Boswell, Tim
Couchman, James



Cran, James
Miller, Sir Hal


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Mills, lain


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Day, Stephen
Mitchell, Sir David


Devlin, Tim
Moate, Roger


Dickens, Geoffrey
Monro, Sir Hector


Dicks, Terry
Morris, M (N'hampton S)


Dover, Den
Morrison, Sir Charles


Dykes, Hugh
Morrison, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Eggar, Tim
Moss, Malcolm


Emery, Sir Peter
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Evennett, David
Mudd, David


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Needham, Richard


Fallon, Michael
Neubert, Sir Michael


Favell, Tony
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Fearn, Ronald
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Norris, Steve


Field, Barry (lsle of Wight)
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Fishburn, John Dudley
Oppenheim, Phillip


Flynn, Paul
Page, Richard


Fookes, Dame Janet
Paice, James


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Patnick, Irvine


Forth, Eric
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Fox, Sir Marcus
Pawsey, James


Franks, Cecil
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Freeman, Roger
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


French, Douglas
Porter, David (Waveney)


Gardiner, Sir George
Powell, William (Corby)


Gill, Christopher
Price, Sir David


Glyn, Dr Sir Alan
Raffan, Keith


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Redwood, John


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Gorst, John
Riddick, Graham


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Gregory, Conal
Rumbold, Rt Hon Mrs Angela


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Ground, Patrick
Sackville, Hon Tom


Hague, William
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim


Hampson, Dr Keith
Sayeed, Jonathan


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Haselhurst, Alan
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Hayes, Jerry
Shersby, Michael


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Skinner, Dennis


Hayward, Robert
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Speller, Tony


Hind, Kenneth
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Howells, Geraint
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Irvine, Michael
Steen, Anthony


Irving, Sir Charles
Stephen, Nicol


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Stevens, Lewis


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Summerson, Hugo


Kirkhope, Timothy
Taylor, lan (Esher)


Knapman, Roger
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Thompson, Sir D. (Calder Vly)


Knowles, Michael
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Knox, David
Thorne, Neil


Lang, Rt Hon lan
Thurnham, Peter


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Lightbown, David
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Trippier, David


Lord, Michael
Twinn, Dr lan


Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Waller, Gary


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Ward, John


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Warren, Kenneth


Maclean, David
Watts, John


Maclennan, Robert
Wheeler, Sir John


McLoughlin, Patrick
Whitney, Ray


Malins, Humfrey
Widdecombe, Ann


Mans, Keith
Wiggin, Jerry


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Wigley, Dafydd


Mates, Michael
Wilkinson, John


Maude, Hon Francis
Wilshire, David


Mellor, Rt Hon David
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)
Winterton, Nicholas


 


Wood, Timothy
Tellers for the Noes:


Young, Sir George (Acton)
Mr. John M. Taylor and


Younger, Rt Hon George
Mr. Neil Hamilton.

Question accordingly negatived.

Order for Third Reading read.

Mrs. Rumbold: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I want to reiterate the Government's conviction that this particular Bill is an essential piece of legislation, drafted well now, with the amendment that we have accepted, and that it will bring to the prison system a useful deterrent against those people who might think it possible to have some form of disruption leading to the kind of destruction of our prisons that we have seen in recent years.
This is unacceptable. We wish to have the climate in our prisons in which the reforms that we plan to introduce as the result of our White Paper in response to Lord Justice Woolf's wise report will be possible, without the kind of disruption that we have seen in the past.
It is for that reason that I commend the Bill, as amended, to the House.

Mr. Sheerman: We have argued this Bill on Second Reading, in Committee and now on Third Reading in a positive manner. We have improved the Bill; with the Government's acceptance of a major amendment, we have seen the Bill considerably changed, and we will not be voting against it on Third Reading. We said on Second Reading that, if major amendments were made, we would not vote against the Bill, and we keep that pledge, but I must say, in the brief time allowed me, that the Bill is still disappointing.
Britain's penal system is falling about the Government's ears. When any system is under stress, there are symptoms. Anyone who looks at the prison system, as Lord Justice Harry Woolf did when he considered the Strangeways and other related riots, to which this Bill is a response, will see several symptoms. One is the sort of riot and mayhem that we saw at Strangeways. Another is the tragic suicides increasingly occurring in young offenders' institutions and in prisons—suicides not only of inmates but also of prison officers. Bad industrial relations are also a symptom of a system under stress.
We also see the ghastly symptom of governors and prison officers unable to keep the security of our prisons intact. It is a sad day when we discover that, for seven weeks, the Home Secretary has failed to tell the House that a major criminal, with a record not only of drug trafficking but also of trying to defraud British Aerospace of £40 million, has walked out of one of Her Majesty's prisons. There has been no statement to the House, no reference to it in this place by the Government. It follows on the heels of the apparently simple and easy escape of the two suspected IRA terrorists from Brixton prison.
I mention the symptoms of stress in order to point out that our penal system is in grave disorder. Lord Justice Woolf framed his recommendations to make sure that there was a serious legislative input in the House to reform the prison system. We have consistently argued that this legislation, which we will not oppose in its modified form, dwells on the surface of things and fails to get to the heart of what is wrong with our penal system. It will need an incoming Labour Government to put it right and to put law and order at the top of the agenda.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Uncertificated Securities

The Minister for Corporate Affairs (Mr. John Redwood): I beg to move,
That the draft Uncertificated Securities regulations 1992, which were laid before this House on 19 December, be approved.
Hon. Members who are interested in the subject will no doubt have seen the draft regulations, which have been available in the Vote Office and will know that at the back of the document is to be found a full summary and explanatory note setting out the basis of the TAURUS system and what the Government propose to do to ensure that that system is properly regulated in the interests of shareholders.
The Government have paid particular attention to the lot of the smaller shareholder. We were extremely concerned that the small shareholder should be able to participate in a debate within his company and that he should be able to vote on whether the company should join the AURUS system or not. We were especially concerned that the small shareholder would not have to maintain his shareholding, if he did not wish to do so, through a commercial controller who might charge him fees for the privilege of maintaining his holding.
We therefore introduced the idea of the—
It being Seven o'clock, and there being private business set down by THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS, under Standing Order No. 16 (Time for taking private business), further proceeding stood postponed.

King's Cross Railways Bill (By Order)

As amended, further considered.

Clause 7

PASSENGER CONCOURSE BUILDING AT KING'S CROSS AND ST. PANCRAS MAIN LINE STATIONS

Mr. Chris Smith: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 6, line 25, leave out clause 7.

Mr. Peter Snape: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In last night's edition of the Evening Standard, under the headline "Chunnel doubts grow over King's Cross", appeared a quotation from a letter signed by the Minister for Public Transport on 20 January:
We do not know at this stage whether this station"—King's Cross—
will meet the Government's investment criteria. If it does not then, even if the Bill"—
the Bill before us—
is enacted, British Rail will not be allowed
to proceed with the project.
I find it surprising that the Minister should send such a letter, given that he has never informed hon. Members of the position. Why was the information circulated in a letter to protesters, rather than raised in the House?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. I am finding it difficult to know what is the point of order for me. The hon. Gentleman seems to be addressing his comments to the Minister. I can deal only with points of order.

Mr. Snape: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Let me come to the point. What is the point of our debating at great length the King's Cross Railways Bill if the Minister in charge of that Bill is writing to outside organisations saying that if the station—the subject of that Bill—is not viable, it will not be built? Why are we wasting our time in those circumstances?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not really a point of order. I can only say that the amendments that have been selected are in order; we should now proceed with them.

Mr. Chris Smith: The amendment would leave out clause 7 of the Bill. In the constructive spirit in which I approached the Bill when we discussed two new clauses in our previous debate, I have tabled the amendment in an attempt to make the Bill a better Bill, and not to frustrate the entire project. I hope, therefore, that it will receive careful consideration.
The amendment would remove the clause that seeks to give outline planning consent for the concourse building between St. Pancras and King's Cross stations. There are a number of reasons for so doing. The first, and probably the most important, is that the House should be wary in principle of legislating, through the private Bill procedure, to facilitate planning permissions. There are plenty of methods available to British Rail and other developers to seek planning consent—especially outline planning consent—for their proposals. The use of the private Bill procedure to obtain planning permission is something of which the House should be sceptical.
The hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton), who is just leaving the Chamber and who for so long chaired the Committee that considered the Bill, will recognise the importance of that point. The Committee commented in its report on the fact that, in certain respects, British Rail was, effectively, seeking planning permission. Commenting on what was then clause 19, the Committee said, in paragraph 48 of its special report:
We have unanimously decided to delete clause 19 from the Bill.
Clause 19 was the clause that would have overidden listed buildings provisions in respect of the listed buildings on the site in question.
The Committee said that it proposed to delete the
clause for two reasons, the first of which is important:
the exemption from normal planning procedures conferred by the clause would have resulted in the function of planning authority devolving upon Parliament and, in practice, upon this Committee.
It is clear that the Committee was most unhappy about the concept of that function devolving on Parliament through the private Bills procedure. Yet that is precisely what the inclusion of clause 7 entails. As I said, the clause gives outline planning consent for the new concourse building and asks the House, in effect, to act as a planning committee. That stands against the approach of the Committee.

Mr. Tony Banks: My hon. Friend is illustrating the main problem identified by the Joint Committee on Private Bill Procedure, of which I was a member. It is true that organisations have used—and still use—the private Bill procedure as a way of circumventing normal planning operations and requirements within local authority areas. The House should be careful about allowing itself to be used by organisations to enable them to avoid going through the normal planning consultation process—particularly public inquiries. That is one of the big dangers of the private Bill procedure. British Rail is clearly using and exploiting the House, as I am sure my hon. Friend will agree.

Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He and other hon. Members did sterling work on the Joint Committee on Private Bill Procedure, which produced a voluminous report, very little of which has been implemented. I shall not refer to it in detail, because I do not wish to detain the House.
Suffice it to say that the trend identified by the Joint Committee and in the Transport and Works Bill, currently before the House is away from the concept of organisations using private Bills to get planning permission. The explanatory and financial memorandum of the Transport and Works Bill states that the Bill provides for amendments of legislation dealing with the safety of railway and similar systems, including footpaths crossing them, so as to avoid powers having to be sought by special enactment and implements recommendations of the Fennell inquiry into the King's Cross Underground Station fire".
Quite clearly, the way in which the Government are moving in putting this Bill through the House during this Session, the way the Joint Committee on Private Bill Procedure was thinking and the views that many hon. Members have expressed in debate and discussion over the past couple of years indicate that the trend of thinking is moving away from the obtaining of planning permission, where normal planning procedures are possible, by the somewhat different means of getting a private Bill through

the House, where the proper scrutiny which a planning committee can give to an application cannot, by definition, be given. That is the first reason why this amendment should be considered.

Mr. William O'Brien: Am I right in assuming that, because this Bill has been before the House for the past three years, the planning procedures now dictate that there is a change of attitude to planning applications, and that if this application had been made within the past six months or so the whole matter would have been considered differently? Is it not correct that to use the analogy that what happened with the former planning procedure would not happen now is somewhat misleading for the House?

Mr. Smith: Not at all, because the situation is that this Bill was lodged in the House in November 1988, when it contained clause 7, which is the subject of the amendment before us. Six months later, British Rail and London Regeneration Consortium, the proposed private developers for the King's Cross railway lands, jointly lodged two planning applications for the railway lands site.
The first of those planning applications was what one might call a master plan for the entirety of the railway lands site—Norman Foster's concept of an egg-shaped park with a great wall of offices round it. The second planning application, however, was specifically for the concourse building which British Rail is proposing between St. Pancras and King's Cross stations.
So British Rail is revealing precisely what it was up to by its actions at that time. It was including in this Bill the seeking of outline planning permission for the concourse building; yet, six months later, it submitted an outline planning application to the normal planning authority for the same concourse building.
If that planning procedure in precisely the normal way is open to British Rail—and it clearly is something that British Rail recognises, because it put a planning application in—it should not be seeking special, separate powers through the private Bill procedure effectively to bypass the planning application which it has already submitted.

Mr. Tony Banks: My hon. Friend obviously knows the difference between outline and detailed planning permission. For example, I could seek detailed planning permission at Westminster to turn Buckingham palace into a home for people who are sleeping rough on the streets, to turn it into a hostel for the homeless. I think that would be a very good use to which to put Buckingham palace. I would probably get outline permission, but I doubt very much, knowing the political nature of Westminster corporation, that it would give me detailed planning permission. What British Rail has done is to put the application in to Camden as a blind, and now it is trying to use the House and substitute Camden's detailed planning consent.

Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend has a good basic point, because I am sure that British Rail is trying to navigate past the normal planning procedures. However, the effect of clause 7 would be to give outline permission rather than detailed permission. It would still have to go ahead with


the normal detailed planning permission application. If we allowed clause 7 to speed its way on to the statute book, we would be truncating the outline stage of the procedure.
It is worth asking why British Rail might be doing this, because it is such self-evident sharp practice on its part to seek to get round the normal planning procedures. I can only think that it is because of the existence of the Great Northern hotel. The House will be aware that the Great Northern hotel lies precisely between King's Cross and St. Pancras stations. British Rail proposes the demolition of the Great Northern hotel, which it would replace by a supposedly spanking new concourse between the two.
British Rail had originally hoped that it would get away with doing that through the inclusion of the old clause 19 in the original Bill. The Committee saw British Rail off on that point, I am delighted to say, because it deleted clause 19 from the Bill.
It is worth refreshing our minds on what the Committee said about the Great Northern hotel. It said, in paragraph 53:
By common consent, the most significant of the listed buildings affected by the King's Cross proposals is the Great Northern hotel, designed by Lewis Cubitt, the architect of King's Cross station, to which it served as an adjunct. The hotel opened in 1854 and has been in use continuously since then. However, it stands on the site of the intended new passenger concourse, and British Rail therefore proposes its demolition.
The Committee went on to say, referring to Norman Foster, the architect of the proposed new passenger concourse building:
Mr. Foster's designs are striking and may provide the basis for an attractive building. On the other hand, the Great Northern hotel is not only an agreeable mid-Victorian building which, other things being equal, it would be a pity to lose, but it is also an important part of Britain's railway heritage.
That was the verdict of the Committee on the Bill. It very clearly placed substantial value on the existence and appearance of the Great Northern hotel. The Victorian Society has also expressed very great concern about the possibility of the hotel being demolished.

Mr. Banks: My hon. Friend is probably coming on to the point that I wanted to put to him. This is a hotel of some architectural distinction and some historical connections. I believe that Mr. Gladstone often used the hotel, for reasons that I do not think that I can go into at the moment. In the circumstances, the House would be most unwise to allow British Rail to demolish that wonderful building. Who knows, there might be another Mr. Gladstone sitting in this Chamber who might wish to use that wonderful hotel similarly in the future.

Mr. Smith: I certainly hope that my hon. Friend is not casting aspersions on the predilections of hon. Members of the present-day House. I suspect that he is absolutely right about the frequency with which many eminent Victorians may well have used the services of the Great Northern hotel.
The Victorian Society in a memorandum to myself said:
The Victorian Society has always considered the survival of the Great Northern Hotel a matter of crucial importance. In 1984, when British Rail was proposing its demolition and replacement with an office block"—
hon. Members should note that British Rail has been trying to get rid of the hotel for some time; all the talk

about how wonderful the great new Norman Foster creation will be sits oddly beside the original proposals of only eight years ago for the site—
we urged the DoE to list it as an historic building, which the DoE agreed to do.
The Society considers the Great Northern Hotel a building of fine classical design standing at the heart of what is arguably the most important complex of railway buildings in this country. Those seeking its demolition have stated that, as a building, it is not of the same stature as either of the great stations. This is self evidently true but does not diminish the importance of the hotel; it merely reflects the hierarchical manner in which the Victorians viewed architectural style—the hotel was not intended to rival the station, it is a subsidiary building and was designed as such.
The Victorian Society goes on to point out that, despite being a subsidiary building, it is a very fine building. The society's conclusion is:
The Great Northern Hotel is a building of very considerable architectural and historical significance. Only if there were overriding reasons for its demolition—which the evidence given to the Select Committee of Members of Parliament indicated was not the case—could such action be justified.
That memorandum set the case out clearly. If British Rail insists that it wants to go ahead with the inclusion of clause 7 in the Bill, with the creation of the new passenger concourse and with the overriding of the existing normal planning procedures, the danger is that that will intensify the pressure for the demolition of a very fine listed building in the Great Northern hotel. That, I suspect, is one of the real reasons behind what British Rail is up to in including the clause in the Bill.

Mr. O'Brien: I want to develop the issue of the overriding decision. I support totally the preservation of historic buildings which have played a major part in the life style of the nation. But when we consider all the alternatives, as a Member serving a northern constituency, I feel that the preservation of the Great Northern hotel must be weighed against the benefits and advantages of enabling the northern part of the country to use the channel tunnel. I fear that the retention of the hotel would deny a large part of the country that opportunity. That is what we are defending. I ask my hon. Friend to consider that issue. There should be some way of assessing the advantages of retaining the hotel or the benefits if the hotel site were used for the link between the channel tunnel and the northern counties. The matter must be considered by every hon. Member and by people outside the House.

Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend is right to raise the point. However, he is under a misapprehension. There is no specific need for British Rail to demolish the Great Northern hotel in order to get the links which it requires from a new international station at King's Cross through to the north. The only reason for British Rail to demolish the hotel and to retain clause 7 is to have the fancy new Norman Foster canopy linking King's Cross and St. Pancras. While I sympathise entirely with my hon. Friend's wish to ensure that links are available from King's Cross to the north, clause 7 is not essential for that purpose.

Mr. Gary Waller: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is anxious that the House should not be misled. He quoted extensively from the Committee's comments on clause 19, which is no longer part of the Bill. Will he make it clear to the House that listed building consent for the demolition of the Great Northern hotel, if that were


required, is still needed and would not be overridden by anything in the Bill as it stands? Will he also make it clear that an application has already been submitted to Camden council for outline planning permission for the concourse and that detailed planning permission would also be required? Therefore, the requirements of planning consent are not overridden by anything in the Bill, but would be considered later.

Mr. Smith: In the second part of what he said, the hon. Gentleman has made precisely the case for passing the amendment. He admitted that British Rail has submitted an outline planning application to Camden council. It is still under consideration. There is no need for British Rail to have clause 7 in order effectively to override that planning consent.
I should like also to tackle the hon. Gentleman on hjis first point. I suspect that he was being a little disingenuous about it. Of course, there will still be a requirement to get listed building consent for the demolition of the hotel. The Committee, thank goodness, ensured by the deletion of clause 19 of the original Bill that listed building consent will have to be sought. If the House were to agree to clause 7, that would lead to intense pressure of any future public local inquiry to ensure that listed building consent would be given for the demolition of the hotel for the creation of a new concourse. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that having the listed building procedure as a requirement is ultimate protection, I must ask him to think again.
Once the House has spoken, by including clause 7 in the Bill, it will be very difficult to use any of the other planning procedures in existence to protect the Great Northern hotel. That is the danger. That is why I hope that the amendment will be carried and that clause 7 will be deleted from the Bill. Deletion of the clause would do no damage to possible links from King's Cross to the north, but it would ensure that a fine Victorian building was preserved. It would also enshrine in law the principle that the House does not want to act as a local planning authority. That is up to the normal planning procedures, not to legislation of the House.

Mr. Waller: I am afraid that I must disappoint the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) because the promoters cannot accept the amendment. It would effectively remove from the Bill the power to construct a concourse building serving the King's Cross and St. Pancras mainline stations.
The House will be aware that the proposed concourse building, together with the link between Pancras road, which is included in works 16 and 17, will provide a single interchange combining the St. Pancras and King's Cross stations, the proposed low-level station and the London underground stations. Hon. Members who use the existing King's Cross concourse regularly will be aware that it is unsatisfactory from both a functional and an aesthetic point of view. In any event, it will have to be replaced by the end of 1996, when the existing planning permission expires.
The facade of King's Cross station has rarely been seen as it was intended by Cubitt. Buildings were erected soon after the station's construction and, more recently, the existing concourse was erected. That would have to be demolished by 1996 if the existing temporary planning permission was not extended. One of the virtues of the

proposals before the House is that, for the first time, that superb grade 1 listed station will be seen as originally intended by the architect.
The British Railways Board has applied to the London borough of Camden for outline planning permission to construct the new passenger concourse building at above-street level. But the construction must also be authorised by an Act of Parliament—a fact that the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury may have forgotten. Naturally, the new concourse building will incorporate all the features demanded by long-distance inter-city and international travellers.

Mr. Smith: I am not sure whether I caught exactly what the hon. Gentleman said. If British Rail wishes to carry out railway work, it must seek the authority of the House. If, however, it wants to develop a piece of property—a concourse building linking one station to another without involving railway work is simply the development of a piece of property—it does not require the authority of the House to do so but can proceed through normal planning procedures.

Mr. Waller: I said that the works incorporated at below-ground level in the concourse building are regarded as railway works, and therefore an Act of Parliament is required before they can go ahead. It is correct to say that the new passenger concourse building at above-street level requires outline planning permission, which is why an application has been made to Camden council.

Mr. Smith: In that case, will the hon. Gentleman give us a commitment that British Rail will withdraw the above-street level works provisions from the Bill? On the hon. Gentleman's admission, British Rail does not require parliamentary authority to carry out those works.

Mr. Waller: I am advised that it is necessary for the authorisation to be included in the Act of Parliament, which is why it has been included in it.

Mr. Tony Banks: So that the House understands fully what it is being asked to do, will the hon. Gentleman confirm that, whatever may go on underground, and therefore be required to come before the House, the proposal for the demolition of the Great Northern hotel will not be required to come before the House? Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that, if the Bill goes through, the Great Northern hotel will go?

Mr. Waller: The hon. Gentleman said that in his earlier intervention, but he is incorrect. I am glad to be able to make it clear that the deletion of clause 19 will not override the requirement for listed building consent.
The facilities in the new concourse will be of a different order from those currently enjoyed by long-distance travellers and those using Network SouthEast services. Apart from the functional need for efficient station premises for public transport, it is difficult to have a visually satisfactory new concourse building between the splendid grade 1 listed King's Cross and St. Pancras train sheds and station buildings without demolishing the Great Northern hotel.
It was said a few moments ago and in Committee that, other things being equal, it would be a pity to lose the Great Northern hotel. I agree with that because the hotel is a grade 2 listed building, albeit not of the same quality as its neighbours. However, the Norman Foster building


that British Rail proposes to build does justice to the grade 1 listed buildings on either side of it. It has all the makings of a building that will do credit to British Rail and its architect, as well as to the two important stations on either side of it.
British Rail, to its credit, recently modified buildings. On Embankment place, just down the river from Charing Cross, is a fine building.

Mr. Banks: indicated assent.

Mr. Waller: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman concurs with that. In the future, that modern building may be regarded in the same way as we currently regard the existing King's Cross station. Similarly, the new station at Cannon Street has won a civic trust award, and the new buildings at Liverpool Street are also well regarded. I place the proposed new concourse building at King's Cross and St. Pancras in exactly that category.

Mr. Banks: The hon. Gentleman is right. The developments that he mentioned are notable, sympathetic and much admired. The point is that the development at Liverpool Street has managed to embody so much of the original structure. How much of the grade 2 listed Great Northern hotel will be embodied within Norman Foster's design? If the hon. Gentleman can show us that that will happen, the opposition to demolition or alteration might be assuaged, but at present it seems to be a question of the total demolition of the hotel. Even the building of Norman Foster, whom I admire greatly—I am always drinking his lager—will not be an adequate replacement for that wonderful grade 2 listed building.

Mr. Waller: If it were possible to retain the existing building, also by Cubitt, that would be a bonus. It is clear from the proposals for the Norman Foster concourse that it is a different kind of building and it would not be compatible with retaining the Great Northern hotel. I believe that other things are not equal. We would lose a grade 2 listed building that is by no means outstanding and would replace it with a modern building of the highest quality.
I wish to confirm that what I said a few minutes ago is correct. Parliamentary powers are needed under clause 7, regardless of whether outline planning has been applied for. Such authority is needed to authorise interference with highways and statutory undertakers' apparatus. Those are both necessary consequences of the construction of a concourse building. Powers are also needed to confer immunity from action causing nuisance arising from the railway operation in and around the building. In other words, the reservations of the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury, who suggested that we were overriding planning permission, either outlined or detailed, and overriding the requirement for listed building consent, have been shown to be without foundation.
Those of us who regularly use King's Cross and St. Pancras want to be able to look forward to the provision of new facilities that are much better than those currently experienced by travellers. However, that will not be possible given the constraints posed by the listed building, which, in any case, requires consent if it is to be demolished. I ask the House to reject the amendment.

Mr. Eric Martlew: I do not wish to detain the House long, but I fear that it will be a long night. I am against the amendment, although I appreciate the way in which my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) is looking after his constituents.
To those of us from the north of England, there is a choice between the Great Northern hotel and the great north of England. I am afraid that the great north of England must win.

Mr. Chris Smith: If the choice posed were between the needs of the north and the existence of the Great Northern hotel, devoted as I am to the virtues of that hotel, I would entirely agree that the needs of the north of England must come first. But that is not the choice in front of us. The choice is not between protecting the interests of the north of England and saving the Great Northern hotel. The choice is between protecting the interests of the north and not saving the hotel. In that case, there is no contest.

Mr. Martlew: If my hon. Friend had allowed me to continue my argument, perhaps he would have seen its logic.
I represent a constituency in the north-west—other hon. Members who represent that region are present and perhaps they will speak in the same vein. I fear that if clause 7 is deleted, it will be difficult for a link to be made between Euston and King's Cross stations. This week, I had a meeting with senior British Rail officials. They are worried because they have no idea how they will get people from Euston to King's Cross so that people can enjoy the full benefits of the channel tunnel. It appears that they hope that someone will develop a tardis or time machine to get people across to King's Cross. That is worrying. if a solution is not found, support for the Bill from hon. Members representing the north-west will diminish considerably.
Carlisle is near the Scottish border and I fear that travellers will go from Glasgow to Edinburgh and down the east coast to King's Cross because of the problems at Euston. If the amendment is accepted, it will be difficult for British Rail to find a solution. I have sympathy with my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury. If I represented his constituency I might make a similar case, but perhaps without his eloquence. After all, he is a member of the shadow Front-Bench Treasury team and one expects such eloquence from him.
The north of England will suffer if the Bill is not passed. There are great reservations in the north-west. People believe that British Rail will improve the service on the eastern side of the country, once again, and leave us, as it has now, with an inferior service. I say that with great feeling, as I spent an hour and a quarter at Lichfield station on my way down to speak in the debate.
I shall vote for the Bill. I hope that representatives of British Rail and Conservative Members will take note of the great concern felt by those of us from the north-west, who fear that we will not get the full benefits of the Bill.

Mr. Tony Banks: My hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) should know that there is no question in my mind, or that of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith), of putting the continued existence of the Great Northern hotel above and beyond the welfare of the north-west and


of his constituency in particular. I know that Carlisle has a good railway station, which serves one of the best BR breakfasts in the country—I have availed myself of it from time to time when travelling through that beautiful constituency.
My hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle has fallen, once again, into the trap that has been skilfully and carefully prepared for those of my hon. Friends who represent the north. That trap is designed to suggest that, if the development at King's Cross does not go ahead, the north will lose out. That is not so. If my hon. Friend's constituents wish to travel from Carlisle to London in order to use the channel tunnel to reach the continent, it will not be of great concern to them whether they travel through King's Cross or through Stratford, unless they want to get out at King's Cross for some reason. If they are just intent on going through the channel tunnel, it does not matter through which London station they go. Given the large number of people from the north who want to go to the continent, perhaps it is more likely that they will use cheaper air services, thus avoiding the long train journey that would be involved in getting from Carlisle to Paris, for example.

Mr. Martlew: Many of my constituents look forward to the day when they can fall asleep in Carlisle and wake up in Paris. That is the way in which people from the north-west will use the channel tunnel

Mr. Banks: Every night I dream of waking up in Paris, but it rarely happens. However, I accept that that is a relevant point. If those people had gone to sleep in Carlisle, they would be even less aware of the London station through which they had passed. They would not be aware if they went via Stratford or King's Cross to Paris. That is my argument.

Mr. Snape: rose—

Mr. Banks: Heavens, I have flushed out the old ticket collector.

Mr. Snape: My hon. Friend's wit has flushed out the same old argument, but flushing it out and peering at it does not make it any more attractive. Neither my constituents nor those of my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle could get to Paris via Stratford. Whatever the froth, verbiage or wit from my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), he has not told us how to do that whether we are asleep or awake.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the House that we are discussing the passenger concourse building. We must not widen the debate.

Mr. Banks: My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) is continually provoking and goading me. I must tell him that I prefer his speeches when he is asleep rather than when he is awake, but I must let details about our personal relationship outside the House pass by.
We are being asked to agree to the demolition of the Great Northern hotel. The sponsor of the Bill, the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller), was disingenuous—I do not believe that he intended to be so, because he is an honest and honourable man—because once the Bill is passed, the pressure on the Department of the Environment, particularly from the Department of Transport, will be irresistible and listed building consent,

for the demolition of the Great Northern hotel will be given. In effect, we are being asked to override the listed building consent, and what the hon. Gentleman said is a technicality, which amounts to nothing. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury has already made that point.
I served as a member of the Joint Committee on Private Bill Procedure and we noticed that the promoters of private Bills continually used private Bills to get around the usual planning procedures. On this occasion, the Select Committee considering the Bill saw that and stipulated that listed building consent was necessary. Unfortunately, that has erected only a very minor obstacle in British Rail's path and it has not safeguarded this grade 2 listed building.
Once we have agreed that the Bill should go ahead, it would be inconceivable that the Department of the Environment would stand in British Rail's way. Even in the event that it did, the matter would go to the Secretary of State, and it is most unlikely, given that the Government and the Minister support the Bill, that the Secretary of State would refuse to give his consent to demolition. We must acknowledge that as a fact of life. All the technicalities in the world will amount to nothing in the face of realpolitik.
The hon. Member for Keighley talked about Norman Foster's design. I am sure that it will be an excellent design, but we all know the sights that we will see in the new concourse, in the guise of the extra facilities that the hon. Gentleman described. There will be Sock Shops, Tie Racks, Casey Jones instant hamburger joints and Knickerboxes where hon. Members can buy frillies on their journeys north. Such places will add nothing distinctive to London—nothing different from what we can see on any other station concourse.
I have said that the development at Liverpool Street is a sympathetic one, but even there the same sort of retail outlets are to be found. There will be no difference in Norman Foster's building.
In effect, the House is being asked to agree to the demolition of yet another listed building in London—the Great Northern hotel. I hope that hon. Members, especially colleagues from the north, can remember the old Euston station building with its concourse and arch. Just to show that this is not a narrow party political point, I recall that that wonderful building was destroyed under a Labour Government. Can anyone claim that the new Euston concourse and station front are superior to the original building? We threw away a great piece of railway history, and I suspect that we will do the same to the Great Northern.

Mr. Martlew: I know the new Euston station well, just as I knew the old one well. My father was an engine driver who took trains into it. For those of us who have to use the new station as passengers, the new station is greatly superior. The old one was a disaster. We should not have to keep buildings just because they are historic and look nice; we have to consider the passengers using them. If we do not, that is a recipe for disaster in the 21st century.

Mr. Banks: That is certainly an argument, but I can think of many counter-arguments. The Palace of Westminster is not particularly convenient for the work of Members of Parliament, nor is it a particularly convenient building for visitors. So let us demolish it. I am sure that we can build a more effective building for our work. I note


that my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle nods in agreement, but I suspect that he would run into some difficulties, perhaps even with the Department of the Environment, if he tried to demolish the Palace.

Mr. Martlew: I should be delighted if this building were closed down and made into a museum. We could then build a new government building just south of Manchester and remove the Government from London. London has too much influence on how the rest of the country is governed—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the House that we are not discussing the merits of the Palace of Westminster or of Euston station.

Mr. Banks: I entirely agree. My hon. Friend led me into giving a comparison, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have often suggested that we should have a moving Parliament that tours other parts of the country. Carlisle would make an excellent stopping place, as would Manchester, Bury—you name it, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I long to see those towns for longer periods than I have spent there before.
My hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle suggested that we close down this building, but he did not mention demolishing it. We are discussing the demolition of a building. I agree that the new Euston station is more convenient for passengers, but surely with the architectural skills that we still have in some measure in this country it is possible to combine the best of the old with the best of the new and not just start again from the floor, to to speak. I am sure that it would have been possible to preserve some of the architectural integrity and distinction of the old Euston station while combining it with the modern conveniences that passengers require. That should not be beyond our architects.
It would be easier for London representatives to accept this clause if we knew that there was some way of marrying the excellence of Norman Foster's design with the design of Mr. Cubitt for the Great Northern. Unfortunately, the hon. Member for Keighley does not seem prepared to offer us that. If he will give us an assurance that the House will be given another opportunity to consider whether the Great Northern should be demolished, I might be a little more satisfied. If he cannot, I shall support the amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury which, whatever hon. Members may think, is certainly not an attempt to destroy the Bill.
It is an honourable course to want to preserve one of the nicer buildings of London. People who come here do so not to see our empty office blocks, to inhale our noxious air full of the exhaust of motor vehicles or to enjoy our weather; they come here to look at our buildings and to stay in some of our quainter hotels. Those hotels are disappearing apace and being replaced by Hiltons and Sheratons—the sort of hotels to be found in any other city around the world. In a chain hotel it is impossible to know whether one is in London, Tokyo or Rome—it cannot be guessed from the interior.
In the Great Northern hotel, however, people know that they are in one of the great Victorian railway hotels where they can see the bed where Mr. Gladstone laid his grey and venerable head. Anyone prepared to walk with heavy boots over the memory of Mr. Gladstone is risking the anger not only of Londoners but of parliamentarians

of many former generations. People should think carefully before they do that, because Mr. Gladstone might return to haunt them while they are walking around the Sock Shops and Knickerboxes of the new concourse that will link these two stations.

Mr. O'Brien: If people are still sleeping in the bed that Mr. Gladstone occupied in the Great Northern hotel, that is reason enough for its demolition. It should be modernised along the lines that British Rail is contemplating. If that is the best that the Great Northern can offer, it is time we looked at what provision we are making for tourists. If that is the best on offer, we are failing to encourage tourism in the area.
However, if we have a new development and connections between the north-east and the north-west on that campus, there will be many benefits for many people who, I assume and hope, would favour the channel tunnel development. Are we saying that because a grade II listed building must remain, my constituents and the people of Carlisle and other places in the north will be denied the facilities that are associated with the channel tunnel? We cannot pay the price of maintaining the Great Northern hotel, a grade II listed building, if that means that my constituents and others in the north will be sacrificed and unable to benefit from the channel tunnel.
Clause 7 refers to the development of a passenger service concourse. That is just part of the development of the facilities for the use of channel tunnel passengers. I hope that, after this episode, British Rail will introduce a programme whereby we in the north-east, the north-west and the Border areas will be told how the freight trains will transport goods from the north of England, through London and to the channel tunnel. That is not mentioned in the Bill. I hope that after tonight's debate, we shall hear some explanation to allay my concerns and those of my colleagues about what will happen in regard not only to passenger services, but freight services also.

8 pm

Mr. Chris Smith: My hon. Friend has touched on an exceptionally important point. The issue of freight and of how we can ensure that freight can reach the channel tunnel from all parts of the country is extremely important, but hitherto the Government have said not a word about it. There is no proposal that freight should go through King's Cross. At the moment and as far as we can understand, it is intended that freight will go round London. We have not heard any clear statement from the Government on that issue, and it is high time that we did.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the House that we are discussing clause 7.

Mr. O'Brien: I am referring to clause 7(1), Mr. Deputy Speaker, which states:
In this section 'the designated land' means the land in the London borough of Camden".
I hope that references to the designation of land for development do not apply only to the provision of passenger services because we must consider other facilities, such as the provision of freight services.
I rest my case on the fact that I believe that substantial advantages can flow from the development of facilities in the King's Cross-Euston-St. Pancras area and that people from the north can benefit tremendously from them. I have supported my hon. Friend the Member for Islington,


South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) in the past on the issue of environmental assessments because I believe that his constituents must be protected against developments that might interfere with their quality of life. However, when it comes to the question of whether to retain a grade II listed building, and to weighing the consequences of its retention with the loss of advantage for millions of people in the north of England, I must appeal for the decision to be taken in favour of the people whom I represent in the north of England. I hope that my hon. Friend will see the value of those points.

Mr. Chris Smith: My hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) has made what appears on the surface to be a persuasive case, but the institution of the passenger concourse that British Rail is now proposing between St. Pancras and King's Cross on the land referred to in clause 7 is not in any way an essential requirement to ensure that people in the north-east and north-west can benefit from the location of the international station at King's Cross. It is an adjunct to that basic requirement. The removal of clause 7 would not in any way damage the interests of the people who wish to travel from the north.

Mr. Waller: I am sorry to have to press the hon. Gentleman on this point, but does he agree that if, for the reasons that I mentioned earlier, it were impossible to develop any new concourse, all travellers—both long-distance travellers and commuters—would be seriously disadvantaged if the existing facilities had to be relied on? Would there not be great difficulty in overcoming the requirement for the existing concourse in front of King's Cross to be demolished if its temporary designation were not renewed, even assuming that there was not a big question mark over the length of time for which it can be renewed?

Mr. Smith: In so far as the hon. Gentleman is referring to the inadequacies of the present concourse, he is entirely right, because it is not sufficient to cope with the existing passenger load at King's Cross. If 15 million extra passengers a year are to travel through King's Cross, the problem will be considerably worse. However, that is not the choice before us. I do not have the slightest doubt that it is possible to preserve the Great Northern hotel and to create a new concourse between King's Cross and St. Pancras and to do both without damaging the interests of travellers from the north. I am sure that, if British Rail applied its mind to that task, it would find it perfectly possible to come up with a solution.
I should like to answer a point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) about the links from the new passenger concourse—not to the north-east, but to the north-west. As my hon. Friend said, that is of fundamental importance to many of our colleagues who represent constituencies in the north-west. The ability to get from the new passenger concourse, to which the amendment refers, to Euston station, which is the obvious and main link to the north-west, is an essential part of British Rail's case for the entire Bill. However, British Rail has not been particularly candid about the link to Euston.
On 25 November 1990, when we debated the carryover motion, the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) said:
All that I can say on the fixed link between Euston and the new complex"—
which is what we are considering in clause 7—
—because I mentioned that a number of options are still being considered—is that it will he a dedicated link. Some of

the roads in the vicinity which are owned by British Rail, for example, may be used and a bus may travel on a dedicated route or on a dedicated track. At this stage, I cannot say what the link will be, although I can say that it will be a dedicated, high-quality link."—[Official Report, 25 November 1991; Vol. 199, c. 686.]
We are entitled to ask both of the Government and British Rail what precisely this dedicated high-quality link will be. The House will recall that the original British Rail proposal was for a travelator linking King's Cross and Euston. Let us leave aside the fact that a travelator would have to be at least 1 km in length and require a journey, moving at the sort of speed at which travelators at Heathrow airport move, of 20 minutes. British Rail then discovered that there was a slight problem about linking the new passenger concourse at King's Cross with Euston by a travelator. It would have to run directly through the six-storey basement of the British Library, which has just been built at enormous public expense and which lies slap-bang between the new concourse and the link to Euston and the north-west.
Having discovered that a travelator would not be the easy answer that it supposed it to be, British Rail appears to be saying that such a plan is not on—there has been some discussion between British Rail and local authorities in the north-west—and it is looking at other options. Among the options is a subway with a partial travelator. This would involve a travelator for part of the way and then passengers would have to walk, carrying their suitcases, for the rest of the way. Another option is a subway on its own, with no travelator. That would involve a walk of 1 km to get from the channel tunnel train at King's Cross to a train to the north-west at Euston. For many people, a walk of that distance would be a discouragement to making the journey.
Another option is a light rail transit link between stations. If it were to be effective, that would impose a substantial extra cost on the operation. Another option is a bus route from one station to the other, perhaps through all the local residential streets that have recently been subjected to traffic calming measures and the exclusion of substantial vehicular traffic.
I say to my hon. Friends who represent constituencies in the north-west that the assumption on which everyone entered discussions about the Bill—that it would be easy and simple to get from the channel tunnel trains at King's Cross to the trains to the north-west from Euston—will not hold. Unless and until British Rail comes clean on how the Euston link will be managed and created, there will be continuing doubt about that link. I say that because this is an important point, relating to the issue of the new passenger concourse dealt with in the amendment and because my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle was right to raise a question mark over how sincere British Rail is in assuring us that links to the north-west will be readily available.
The debate on this amendment has ranged reasonably widely. At the outset, I raised two points that the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) then failed to address. The first involves a point of principle. That is, that it is wrong for the House, by means of private Bills, to take planning decisions. The second point is that British Rail has submitted a planning application to the London borough of Camden for the outline permission that is set out in clause 7. By that action, it has admitted that it has no need to seek the powers in clause 7.
8.15 pm
The hon. Member for Keighley made one valid point —that there might be, he was advised, some work below ground that required, as an essential ingredient, parliamentary authority. If that is the case, British Rail should be seeking authority for those below-ground works and not including as part of them the above-ground works for which it does not require parliamentary authority. Clause 7 specifically says:
The Board may in, on, over or under any part of the designated land make, maintain and operate the passenger concourse".
Therefore, even if British Rail does require parliamentary authority to carry out works under the designated land, it does not need to come to the House for authority to do so in, on or over. That is the argument that lies behind the amendment, and I commend it to the House.
Amendment negatived.

Clause 10

STOPPING UP ROADS

Mr. Chris Smith: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 7, leave out lines 10 and 11.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 3, in clause 20, page 11, line 27, at end insert—
'(5) Nothing in this Act shall authorise the Board or the Company to purchase or use the land in the London Borough of Camden numbered 88–101 on the deposited plans.'.
No. 4, in clause 23, page 13, line 31, at end insert—
'(3A) On completion of Works Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4A and 4B, the Board shall, within six months, reinstate on the land numbered on the deposited plans 25 in the London Borough of Camden, the natural park known as Camley Street Natural Park, with all necessary facilities and conveniences.'.
No. 5, in clause 23, page 13, line 38, at end insert—
'(5) Within six months of completion of Work No. 2, the Board shall reinstate on the site of 13–17 Caledonian Road in the London Borough of Islington, land numbered 76 in the deposited plans, a hostel of at least 33 bedspaces for homeless people.'.
No. 11, in schedule 4, page 26, line 8, column 3, leave out
'for the general purposes of the Board'
and insert
'to be returned to the freeholder'.
No. 12, in schedule 4, page 26, line 10, at end insert—
'39–70 For the provision of a construction site and thereafter to be returned to the freeholder.'.

Mr. Smith: This group of amendments deals with a number of detailed aspects of the works that British Rail is proposing and especially with what should happen to land or property once British Rail's need to use them in carrying out the works has expired.
Amendments Nos. 2, 11 and 12 are very much of a piece. The key point concerns use of land. If British Rail requires land not for its railway purposes, such as putting a track or station on it, but simply to assist with building work—for example, to gain access to the great box that it intends to create below level, as a place to put site huts on, or to keep some of the ancillary equipment that it needs to carry out the basic railway works—once the work is finished and the station is complete, those bits of land should be returned to their original owners. The Bill does not say that. In such cases, British Rail can retain land

when the work is finished even when there is no railway-specific need to retain it, and presumably undertake property development and make a profit on it.
The amendments argue that, instead of British Rail acting as a property developer and profiting from land when its need to use it has ended, that land should be returned to its former owners for whatever better potential use they may decide.
Mr. Derek Stuckey wrote to me in considerable detail about the land that is in his ownership. I can best set the scene by explaining that Mr. Stuckey is a 75-year-old barrister who retains chambers at No. 3 Dr. Johnson's buildings in the Temple. Mr. Stuckey lives at No. 2 to 2a Keystone crescent, which property is directly subject to the Bill.
Mr. Stuckey was born at No. 2 Keystone crescent, and his family have owned land at King's Cross—including that now sought to be acquired—for more than 100 years. His son Robert and his family live at No. 9 Keystone crescent, and his other son, George, lives at No. 1 Omega place. Therefore, the family have deep roots in the area affected by the Bill.
Mr. Stuckey writes that the total area of land that he owns, and which is in the purview of the amendments, is about half an acre, and includes within the limits of deviation of the Bill nine shops in Caledonian road—Nos. 10 to 26, even, inclusive. They include a health food shop, cafe, toiletries, florists, newsagent and confectioner, men's and women's outfitters, greengrocer, barber shop, and an Italian delicatessen. The upper parts of those shops are used mainly for residential purposes.
Mr. Stuckey writes:
The construction of the low-level station would result in the demolition of the parade of shops, and of the garage at the rear. Yet, according to the plans submitted to the Select Committee of the House of Commons, on the most unfavourable view, only a small part of this land would be occupied by the proposed low-level station. By far the greater part of the land would be used solely as a site for the purposes of the construction of the low-level station.
At the end of the day, it is proposed that British Railways Board shall retain, not simply the proposed low-level station but the remainder of the land taken as a construction site.
In other words, after British Rail had used the land as a construction site, and, although it would not thereafter need it for any specific railway or station purposes, British Rail would continue to own it.
Amendments Nos. 11 and 12 seek to ensure that those parts of the site currently owned by Mr. Stuckey and not required for the railway or the station are returned to him, so that he may decide on proposals for its subsequent use. If British Rail Property Board makes that decision, I suspect that we will see not a return to the small, human-scale shopping facilities that currently exist, but a British Rail office block.
It is suggested that British Railways Board should not be permitted by private Bill to acquire land for development, but only for the operational purposes of their railway, and that the persons from whom it is compulsorily acquired should have the opportunity of redeveloping it, once the primary purpose of acquiring the land—the construction of the low-level station—has been accomplished … None the less, the return to me of the remaining one third of the site"—
the other two thirds are not owned by Mr. Stuckey—
would enable me or my successors to influence the development of the former coach station, in the interests of the residents of Keystone Crescent, and to endeavour to secure the rebuilding of the parade of shops, in substantially the same form, though with such modifications and improvements as might be necessary and practicable.


Mr. Stuckey says that, if the land is not required by British Rail after the development has been completed were returned to him, he would be sensitive to the traditions of the area—in terms of the kind of shops that currently exist and the need to replace them. You can bet your boots, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that if British Rail Property Board retains ownership of the land, it will not have the same interests of the local people and community at heart.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Does my hon. Friend see a link between the case that he describes and that of Crichel Down, in which—in almost exactly parallel circumstances—land was not returned for agricultural purposes until a court decided that that was just what the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food was required to do? It might be better to accept my hon. Friend's amendment to ensure that Mr. Stuckey, who is a barrister, does not delay matters by indulging in litigation—particularly as there may be a major precedent to help him.

Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend draws an extremely important analogy. The Bill provides for British Rail to retain the ownership of the sites when the development is completed for the general purposes of the board. They cover a multifarious array of activities, including office development, to maximise British Rail's profit. That is not necessarily a fair way of dealing with someone such as Mr. Stuckey, whose family has had land in the area for a substantial length of time.
Amendment No. 2 will delete from clause 10 the proposed road closure of Omega place. Even if that closure is temporarily required for works to be undertaken, it is wrong to write into the Bill the permanent closure of Omega place, when that is not a requirement for the completed station's operation. Mr. Stuckey writes:
future development is likely to lead to the construction of a single, large building or block of buildings, which will materially alter the character of the district, to the prejudice of the residents and of the neighbourhood.
By seeking the permanent closure of Omega place, British Rail aims to ensure that subsequent development can spread on either side, while including Omega place itself, and a bigger office block can be built subsequently. That would substantially alter the character of the neighbourhood.
Mr. Stuckey continues:
The time for considering the closure of Omega Place is when plans for future redevelopment of the site are put forward. If those plans are of sufficient merit to warrant it, the closure of Omega Place can then be considered, and effected by the usual procedure, which provides for objections by owners of land adjoining the highway. Until such plans are put forward, and shown to be an improvement on what exists at present, the bias should be towards a redevelopment of the land substantially in its present, useful form.
That puts the case very succinctly. So far, British Rail has told us nothing about what it will put in place of the land that it is grabbing by means of the Bill, and the additional land that will result from the closure of Omega place. I fear, however, that we shall see a substantial commercial office development.
8.30 pm
If that is so, by enabling Omega place to be closed and ensuring that British Rail can hang on to bits of land that it will not need after the completion of the station, we are allowing British Rail carte blanche to present whatever proposals it wishes to present. We ought to be saying, "Let

us look specifically at what British Rail proposes—or what the present owners propose—at the time when the proposals are presented."
British Rail does not need the powers that it seeks in the Bill to build its station. We should ensure that such matters as the closure of Omega place are decided on their merits, at the appropriate time, rather than being dealt with now, on a permanent basis, when British Rail requires only a temporary closure to carry out its work.
Amendment No. 11 relates to other working sites, which are not owned by Mr. Stuckey to the same extent. Schedule 4 concerns a large area of land in both Camden and Islington, towards the north of the site. Here again we confront the problem referred to by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer). The schedule would enable that piece of land to be used for the provision of a construction site, and
thereafter for the general purposes of the Board.
Most of the land should be returned to its former owners, under the Great Northern Railways Act of 1846, if it ceases to be used for railway purposes.
The Camden land is currently the subject of litigation by its former owners, the St. Bartholomew's hospital trustees. I shall not say too much about that, because the matter is sub judice; suffice it to say that the trustees are arguing powerfully that the land which, under the 1846 Act, ought to be returned to them, should not end up in the hands of British Rail if British Rail has no specific railway purpose in mind for it. They feel that that principle ought to apply when land is needed for construction purposes, but is not required when the construction is over.
According to the book of reference attached to the 1846 Act, the equivalent land in Islington used to be owned by a gentleman called Mr. Leigh Keck. Mr. Keck's descendants, or assignees, may be interested in getting their land back, just as the St. Bartholomew's trustees are interested in getting theirs back. Amendment No. 11 would resolve all those problems by ensuring that working sites that are required for works but not for the station that will subsequently be built should be returned to their freeholders, or to the descendants of the original owners.
Amendment No. 4 seeks to ensure that the Camley street natural park is reinstated within six months of the completion of the works that will destroy it. The park was created, as a superb natural ecological environment, by the Greater London Council, and has been much appreciated by many hundreds of local school children. It has been used as an educational resource by both Camden and Islington education authorities. The park, which is located beside the canal, will be destroyed if the Bill is enacted. British Rail intends to build a series of railway tracks there.
I should be fair to British Rail: it has consistently said that the park will subsequently be reinstated. That will be difficult; it is impossible to develop a fragile ecological environment overnight. British Rail, however, claims that it may even make the park a little bigger.
My amendment effectively says to British Rail, "Once you no longer need the area for the works, the Camley street park must be reinstated immediately". I do not want British Rail to drag its feet, feeling—when the station is completed and the railway lines are in place, and it is time to turn to the property development that London Regeneration may then be beginning to undertake—that office blocks come first and Camley street comes last.
I want Camley street to come first; I want to ensure that that precious educational and environmental resource is restored at the first opportunity for the benefit of local children. I hope that, even if the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) will not accept amendment No. 4, he will give a firm commitment that British Rail will embark immediately on the job of reinstating Camley street once the land is no longer required for works.
Amendment No. 5 concerns a hostel for the homeless, now located at 13–17 Caledonian road. The hostel was opened in May last year by the Minister for Housing and Planning, with a considerable fanfare of trumpets. The local newspaper was very positive about the affair. It interviewed a young woman called Tracy Atkinson, who was being housed in the hostel. The report stated:
Housing minister George Young, opening the 33-bed hostel in Caledonian Road on Thursday last week, was shown Tracy's room and heard first hand how she"—
oh, I beg the House's pardon—Tracy Atkinson is a man, not a woman—
how he had ended up there.
The point is that that hostel for the homeless was created with assistance from the Church housing association and was sponsored by the Government and opened by the Minister only seven or eight months ago, yet it is one of the properties affected by the Bill.
As soon as British Rail gets permission to start compulsorily purchasing and demolishing property, the hostel will be one of the properties to go. At most, the hostel will have had a life of two years or perhaps three years if it is lucky. Surely provision for homeless people should not be made on the basis that a facility will be up and running for only two or three years. My amendment does not seek to stop it being knocked down, because that would fundamentally breach the Bill, but it seeks to ensure that once the work is finished a hostel for the homeless will be recreated by British Rail.
British Rail will have the necessary land because it will have the land on top of the station box which it will try to redevelop. It will also have all the railway land behind King's Cross and St. Pancras stations which London Regeneration is likely to develop and all the land that it is taking for construction purposes but which it will not need for the station. Therefore, British Rail will have the land and the amendment would ensure that a hostel for the homeless would be recreated in any subsequent development undertaken by British Rail.
Amendment No. 3 seeks to delete from the land used by the promoters what is known as the lighthouse block. Hon. Members who frequently go through King's Cross will know that the lighthouse block is the building at the apex of the triangle as one faces along the Euston road towards Pentonville road with King's Cross on the left. The building immediately in front of one at the apex of the triangle has a structure on top of it which is reminiscent of a lighthouse, and it has always been known as the lighthouse block.
The triangular block of which the lighthouse is the apex is bounded by Grays Inn road, Pentonville road and King's Cross bridge just to the east of King's Cross station. Although it is included in the Bill, British Rail announced on the first day of the Committee hearings—on 22 June 1989—that it was not needed for any of the work included in the Bill. British Rail is saying—and has been saying for the past two years—that it does not need to take the

lighthouse block. In that case, the promoters should be able to accept my amendment immediately, because it seeks only to delete that block from the Bill.
This detailed series of amendments relates to specific pieces of land which British Rail may in some instances require temporarily but not subsequently. In the case of the lighthouse block, it is land that it does not require at all. Camley street and the hostel for the homeless are important social facilities on existing property and pieces of land in the area which I seek to have reinstated or recreated by British Rail as rapidly as possible after it has completed its works. Those are reasonable points, and I hope that they will receive a reasonable response from the Bill's sponsor.

Mr. Waller: I shall deal with the amendments in the order chosen by the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith). The promoters are not able to accept amendment No. 12. Its effect would be to prevent the British Railways Board from permanently acquiring the major portion of an area of land which is known locally as the coach station block, and it would limit the board's powers to acquire the block temporarily as a construction site.
The coach station is not required by the British Railways Board merely as a construction site. The proposed low-level station and its approach tracks from the south-east will be located on or under the block and, therefore, the board requires permanently to acquire and retain the freehold of the block to enable the construction and maintenance of the works so that the block will become operational land over which the board will retain permanent access and control.
The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) drew what I considered a spurious comparison with the Crichel Down case, but, as he will know, in that case the land was not used for the purposes for which it was acquired, and the scandal arose because, in the meantime, its price had inflated considerably and the original owner did not benefit. In this case, of course, the land will definitely be used and is required not for property development but for the railway works themselves.
If the amendment were accepted, it would create significant difficulties, because it includes all the properties in the coach station block except four in the row of shops facing Caledonian road, which are omitted for some unaccountable reason known only to the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury. Perhaps he will explain why the owners of those properties should not also enjoy the benefit of his proposed amendment. There seems to be a defect in the drafting of the amendment, which I think, would ensure a result entirely contrary to that which he intends.

Mr. Cryer: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that my analogy with the Crichel Down case is mistaken because, in this instance, British Rail has no intention of undertaking any development after the purchase of the land, the use of it as a construction site and its restoration as there will be a need for some of the land—in whole or in part—to be in operational use underneath to allow for the approach of other tracks? If so, is he also saying that, if British Rail gets hold of land which is superfluous to requirements for construction purposes, it would be


parallel to the Crichel Down case if British Rail then obtained the enhanced value of the land and retained it for entirely different purposes?

Mr. Waller: No, I am saying that British Rail would not be seeking to acquire the land for its temporary or permanent purposes if it were not for the railway development work that it intends to carry out. There is no comparison with the Crichel Down case, which involved different issues and in which the land was not used at all, but in which the original owner did not benefit.
I must disappoint the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury by saying that amendment No. 2 cannot be accepted. It would take from the Bill the power permanently to stop up Omega place between points X8 and X9 as shown on the deposited plans. It is considered that Omega place is too narrow and is located too near Pentonville road to be capable of being used as a means of access to the coach station block following the construction of the works, and that it must therefore be stopped up permanently. Indeed, the Department of Transport King's Cross highways improvement scheme has been prepared on the basis that Omega place will remain stopped up and that access to the coach station block will instead be via Northdown street.
Amendment No. 11, too, is unacceptable. It relates to properties in Camden forming part of the railway lands at King's Cross that are owned by the British Railways Board and are occupied partly by the board and partly by the operators of concrete mixing plant and other industrial users. Schedule 4 to the Bill will enable these properties to be used for the provision of a construction site and, therefore, for the general purposes of the board. This amendment would revise that provision so that it would read:
For the provision of a construction site and thereafter to be returned to the freeholder.
But the amendment is misconceived, since all these properties are already in the ownership of the board. This is another point that the hon. Gentleman seems to have neglected to check before tabling his amendment.
Amendment No. 4 would require the British Railways Board to reinstate the Camley street natural park in its present position after completion of the relevant works. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the board accepts the importance of preserving this facility, and detailed discussions between the board, the London Wildlife Trust and the London borough of Camden have been taking place over a long period. It is expected that a satisfactory agreement will be reached between the board, the trust and the borough with respect to the natural park. This will cover a number of matters, including the park's resiting during and after completion of the works.
As was said during a previous debate, it is intended that, during the construction work, there will be a small natural park. This will ensure an element of continuity, which would otherwise be lost. The amendment is inappropriate in that, its limitations would impose too simplistic a solution on a complex problem—a solution that would not entirely meet the wishes of any of the parties most closely concerned with these sensitive issues.

Mr. Chris Smith: I should like to put two questions to the hon. Gentleman. First, he says that there are proposals for the re-creation of Camley street to a limited extent during the course of the works. Is that the project in respect of which British Rail very recently submitted an

application for planning permission to knock down a building in Goods way, in the Regent's canal conservation area, to make way for a car park and study centre? If that is indeed the case, it is a very small site, which in no way represents a replacement, even on a temporary basis, for Camley street.
Secondly, in the discussions with Camden and the London Wildlife Trust, has any account been taken of the time scale for the re-creation of Camley street on a permanent basis after the work has been done? It is time scale that my amendment seeks most actively to promote.

Mr. Waller: The answer to the hon. Gentleman's first question is yes. The temporary park is indeed related to the application to which he has referred. I do not think I used the word "replacement". It is not intended that that temporary facility should be an adequate replacement. That is why the promoters propose replacing the existing natural park with a rather larger one in a slightly altered position.
The existing park came into existence very quickly. The hon. Gentleman has referred to the fragile ecological environment. Anyone who has examined the site of the Camley street natural park will be aware that the environment in which it developed was not propitious so far as the intentions of the people who devised it were concerned. In many ways, it is a tribute to their imagination that it came into existence, and the board is certainly determined that there should be developed something that is just as much an asset to the area and to the schoolchildren who visit it.
It is not possible at this stage to give an exact time scale, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that the board is determined that the facility that comes into existence following completion of the works will be at least as good as that which currently exists. In fact, because it is larger, it will be ecologically suitable for a wider variety of species. I do not believe that the people of the locality will be disappointed with the park that they are ultimately able to enjoy. The hon. Gentleman's narrow amendment does not really accord with the wishes of those parties most closely concerned with these issues, and I do not believe that they would necessarily support the amendment in its present form.
I am afraid that I am unable, on behalf of the promoters, to accept amendment No. 5, which relates to a building known as 13–17 Caledonian road, Islington, which is owned by a finance company, Gleniffer Finance Corporation Ltd. When the Bill was deposited, that building was vacant, and it will be demolished for the purposes of the works. Pending demolition, the owners made arrangements to enable the building to be used as temporary residential accommodation for homeless persons, but that temporary use will cease on demolition.
I submit that it would be unreasonable to require the board to provide on that site a permanent hostel for homeless persons. In any event, there must be doubt as to whether this is a suitable place for such a hostel. The suggestion that it is suitable is not reflected in the land uses contained in the planning brief recently approved by the Islington council.

Mr. Cryer: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the Government are seriously in error in having as their flagship the conquest of homelessness in London and the removal of some of the cardboard cities? Have we simply


had a plaster to cover the terrible policies that resulted in the creation of cardboard cities in London and other major urban areas? Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the Government are mistaken in undertaking the work at this site?

Mr. Waller: The task of providing accommodation for homeless people in London is a vital one. What I am saying is that it is not a task for the British Railways Board. Arrangements were made to ensure that this building would not stand empty during the period of construction. However, that concession—if I may call it a concession—was not intended to suggest that there should be a permanent requirement on the board to provide a hostel for homeless people. That is a desirable objective, but one to be addressed by other agencies.
I am happy to say that amendment No. 3 is acceptable. It would disapply the powers of compulsory purchase which would otherwise apply to the properties referred to in the Select Committee proceedings as the island triangular block—the so-called lighthouse block. As the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury knows, since the Bill was deposited, the design for the works has been further refined, and the promoters are now satisfied that they will not need to purchase compulsorily any property in the island triangular block. The promoters are therefore prepared to accept amendment No. 3.

9 pm

Mr. Chris Smith: Before turning to the welcome news about amendment No. 3, I shall comment briefly on the other amendments. The hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) castigated me in relation to amendment No. 11 for seeming to be unaware that some of the land to which the amendment referred and which it required to be returned to the freeholder was at present in British Rail ownership. I was, of course, aware of that.
The point that I sought to make through the amendment was that the provisions of the Great Northern Railways Act of 1846 have still not been fully resolved in relation to those portions of land. We shall shortly discuss the specific provisions of the 1846 Act and the rights of reversion. It is possible that, if the land ceases to be required for railway purposes, under the provisions of the 1846 Act, it immediately has to leave the hands of British Rail and be returned to the original owners. I was conscious of that point, and that is why the amendment is drafted in its present form.
I am disappointed to hear that it is not possible to give a time scale for the replacement of Camley street natural park. We all hope that, when it is replaced, Camley street will be bigger and better, and even more of an educational resource for local children and local people than the existing natural park is. There is a lot of local concern about how rapidly, or slowly, that will happen.
The purpose of amendment No. 4 was to spur British Rail on to say that Camley street must be replaced as quickly as possible, rather than have the matter dragged out until the very end of any development on the railway land. That is a danger, because Camley street will not be profitable for BR. It is an obligation that BR will have to undertake for the benefit of the community. I hope that British Rail will not say that, because the natural park is a community benefit and because the board will not reap

a profit from it, it will wait for years before it recreates the park. I am disappointed that the hon. Member for Keighley did not give a commitment about the time scale.

Mr. Gordon McMaster: Many of us from Scotland are keen that the Bill should make progress because of the benefits that it will bring to Scotland. However, as a supporter I say that I, too, am disappointed that there has not been a better commitment about Camley street natural park. I wish my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) well in his campaign because, although we support the Bill, I assure him that we also support Camley street natural park.

Mr. Smith: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he just said. His comment shows that, even among colleagues who strongly support the location of the new international station at King's Cross, there is concern about the impact on local people and on the local environment, and on the extremely valuable resource of Camley street natural park which was created by the Greater London council.
On amendment No. 5, the hon. Member for Keighley said that it was not in the purview of BR to create permanent accommodation for homeless persons. If, as I suspect, the hon. Gentleman was suggesting that he believes that BR's purpose is fundamentally to run a railway, and to provide stations, trains and transport, I agree. It is not in the purview of BR to seek to make profit out of property speculation and property development.
If the hon. Member for Keighley is taking the attitude that he has taken on the question of any re-creation of a hostel for the homeless, I urge him to take precisely the same attitude on the future of the land referred to in amendments Nos. 2, 11 and 12, because the land and the property mentioned there are not required by British Rail for running a railway either. If British Rail is not in the business of providing hostels for the homeless, it should not be in the business of speculating on land which it will, in effect, have expropriated from the land's existing owners.
The basis of amendments Nos. 2, 11 and 12 is that, if British Rail does not require a particular piece of land once the station is completed—it has to have that land for access, construction or some other purpose while the work goes on but the purpose ceases once the station is completed—it should not be able to make a killing out of having compulsorily purchased that land in the first instance and then subsequently seeking to develop it. That is an important point of principle.
The House should protect the interests of existing owners rather than handing over land that British Rail does not need permanently. If BR needs the land temporarily, we should give it temporarily to BR in the Bill, but we should not allow BR to take permanently something that it does not need permanently.
Having said that, however, and having explained why I think that the hon. Member for Keighley and British Rail are wrong to seek the powers that my amendments would delete, there is good news on amendment No. 3. As the hon. Member for Keighley said, BR has said that it does not now require the lighthouse block. In that case, I hope that we can now proceed to vote on amendment No. 3 to ensure that that provision is indeed deleted from the Bill.
You may be able to guide me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on how this can be done under our procedures. Instead of voting on amendment No. 2, which I moved, I wish to ensure that we can put amendment No. 3 to a vote.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Does the hon. Member seek the leave of the House to withdraw his amendment No. 2?

Mr. Smith: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdraw.

Clause 20

PURCHASE OF LAND

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Do I understand that amendment No. 3 is agreeable to the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) speaking on behalf of the promoters of the Bill?

Mr. Waller: Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Amendment made: No. 3, in page 11, line 27, at end insert—
'(5) Nothing in this Act shall authorise the Board or the Company to purchase or use the land in the London Borough of Camden numbered 88–101 on the deposited plans.'.—[Mr. Chris Smith.]

Clause 28

ABOLITION OF RIGHTS OF REVERTER AND PRE-EMPTION

Mr. Chris Smith: I beg to move amendment No. 6, in page 17, line 14, leave out clause 28.
We touched on some of the issues relating to the amendment in our discussion on the last group of amendments. The amendment would delete clause 28 on the abolition of rights of reverter and pre-emption. The purpose of clause 28 is to abolish rights given to landowners in the 1840s and 1850s when King's Cross station and the Great Northern railway were created.
Pre-emption means the right to buy back land acquired under the Great Northern Railway Act of 1846, if and when it ceases to be used for railway purposes, and here is the real sting in the tail: pre-emption means the buying back of that land at the original purchase price. Hon. Members will immediately identify the importance of that particular right. The original purchase price was about £100 per acre and, if the land were now available to the original holder at such a price, it would constitute an extremely valuable asset.
The reference to rights of reverter is a reference to the equivalent rights written into contracts for voluntary sale by at least one landowner; so the principle in the case of both rights—pre-emption and reverter—is exactly the same. Those who owned the original land back in the 1850s, who either had the land compulsorily purchased by the railway company or sold it by voluntary agreement, should have the right to re-acquire it if it ceases to be used for railway purposes—and to do so at the original purchase price. British Rail does not require some of the land for railway purposes, and seeks, under clause 28, to override the provisions of the 1846 Act.
Two major organisations have come forward to claim their rights to the land referred to in the clause. Many other people and organisations owned land in the King's Cross station area in the 1850s, and there may well be substantial numbers of descendants of the original owners

who, were they aware of their rights under the 1846 Act, would be extremely concerned to learn that clause 28 would remove those rights. We know of two organisations in precisely that position—the special trustees of St. Bartholomew's hospital and the Church Commissioners.
Both organisations have gone to court to prove and protect their rights. They won their case in the chancery division. British Rail appealed and judgment on that appeal is awaited, so the matter is, strictly, sub judice. It is generally believed that, whatever the outcome of the appeal, the matter is likely to go before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.
British Rail wants to short-circuit that process. It is intent on abolishing the right of pre-emption and reverter and ensuring that, when any of the land is no longer required for railway purposes—it has used the land and no longer needs it once the works are completed—it can develop that land. For some years now, British Rail and the London Regeneration Consortium have been discussing the possibility of such development, which would be extremely valuable, although the current state of the property market—with 20 or 25 per cent. overcapacity in office space in London and surrounding areas—the package has become somewhat less financially attractive for British Rail and the developers. That is throwing into question some of the financial calculations that British Rail must have been making in relation to the King's Cross project.
The point is quite clear: British Rail wants to hang on to such land even though it no longer requires it to run a railway or a station, and to overturn rights which, for the past 150 years, have pertained to St. Bartholomew's and the Church Commissioners—and, for all we know, many other organisations and individuals. I do not think that it is right that British Rail should seek to overturn such long-standing rights. I do not think that it is right for British Rail to seek to expropriate property which it no longer needs for running a railway.
British Rail should be in the business of creating stations and running trains. BR should not be in the business of taking rights away from the descendants of previous owners of the land to enable BR to make a profit out of property development. That is what clause 28 would make possible. I believe that clause 28 should be removed from the Bill, and that is precisely what my amendment would do.

Mr. Waller: If the amendment were accepted, it would remove from the Bill a power to be conferred on the British Railways Board to abolish certain rights of reverter and pre-emption that may exist over land specified in clause 28. The bodies that would be affected by the exercise of that power—the Church Commissioners, St. Bartholomew's hospital and the National Freight Corporation—would be suitably compensated. The matter is the subject of litigation between the board and those bodies. The parties are fully protected by the litigation, which, I submit, should be allowed to run its proper course. The question whether the clause should remain in the Bill may then be settled in the other place, when that litigation has been determined. Nothing could be achieved by our accepting the amendment.
I hope that that answer will satisfy the hon. Gentleman. I do not believe that any good purpose would be achieved by accepting the amendment, and I therefore have to disappoint him.

Mr. Chris Smith: With the leave of the House, I should like to reply to the hon. Gentleman.
I must confess that I am as disappointed by the hon. Gentleman's response as I expected to be. I did not expect that British Rail would be prepared to give way on this rather important point.
We all hope that the judicial process which is currently under way will take proper and fair cognisance of the rights of not just British Rail but the original owners of the land in question. But, if the hon. Gentleman is so convinced that the judicial process ought to decide this matter, there is no need for British Rail to have this clause in the Bill.
We hope that, when the Bill goes to another place, their Lordships will be mindful of the concern that several of us have expressed in the House about overriding the rights of pre-emption and reverter. It is a matter to which the Committee that considered the Bill referred and on which a number of hon. Members have consistently expressed concern. It is a matter which ought to be, and could be, decided by judicial process rather than by the inclusion of clause 28 in the Bill and I certainly hope that their Lordships will take note of these facts.
I am not convinced by what the hon. Gentleman has said, and I wish to put the matter to the House.

Question put and negatived.

Schedule 1

DESCRIPTIONS OF WORKS REFERRED TO IN SECTION 5 OF THIS ACT

Mr. Chris Smith: I beg to move amendment No. 7, in page 20, line 50, leave out from beginning to end of line 3 on page 21.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we shall take the following amendments: No. 8, in page 22, leave out lines 28 to 33.
No. 9, in schedule 2 page 23, leave out line 6.
No. 10, in schedule 3, page 24 leave out line 45.

Mr. Smith: These amendments are of a somewhat detailed nature and relate to some of the specific items of work which are included in the Bill.
Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 seek to delete works Nos. 01 and 014. Those works were proposed by London Underground Ltd. rather than British Rail. They relate entirely to work to the underground concourse at King's Cross, which was recommended in the Fennell report on the tragic fire at King's Cross underground station. Hon. Members will probably recall that some of my constituents died in that fire, as did some of the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn). Firefighters from my constituency and his operated with amazing bravery in trying to ensure that the tragic loss of life was kept to a minimum. None of us needs to be reminded of the need to ensure that the proper safety works recommended by Fennell can be carried out.
When London Underground came forward with proposals for works in connection with the Fennell proposals, and included them in the King's Cross Railways Bill, we did not object to them. We wanted to see them on the statute book as quickly as possible. London Underground, being more sensible than British Rail, saw its opportunity and published a separate Bill, the London Underground (King's Cross) Bill, which includes specifically works Nos. 01 and 014.
That Bill has gone through all its stages in this House, and is now under consideration in another place. I am pleased to have been able to assist in ensuring that it got through its procedures in this House quickly. It has leapfrogged the King's Cross Railways Bill and is ahead of it in the queue of private Bills. I hope that it will go through another place quickly, so that the works may be undertaken as soon as possible.
In those circumstances, it seems otiose, to say the least, to have works Nos. 01 and 014 still in the King's Cross Railways Bill. I hope that my amendment, which seeks to delete them, will be acceptable to the promoters of the Bill, because it is nonsense to include them when they are covered by another Bill which is already ahead of the King's Cross Railway Bill in the legislative programme.
Amendment No. 9 seeks to delete access point A8 in Railway street. That access point is redundant for British Rail. If it were used, it would have a severe impact on the residents of Balfe street, which is a small street of residential accommodation. Much of it has been renovated in recent years by the London borough of Islington, and the houses are occupied by council tenants who are my constituents.
The access point is redundant because, under the King's Cross Railways (No. 2) Bill, British Rail seeks a replacement access point known as A27. That Bill has just been deposited and made its initial attempt at Second Reading earlier today. The new access point is at the junction of Railway street and York way. Petitioners against that Bill object to that proposal and have suggested other points in York way that would be preferable and would avoid unnecessary demolition.
Although alternative access points have been proposed by British Rail and local objectors and petitioners, British Rail is still pursuing access point A8, which the amendment seeks to delete. It is worth noting that that access point is less than 30 m from the rear of houses on Balfe street and is at the start of a steep ramp. British Rail's engineering witness said, in front of the Committee that considered the Bill, that he preferred an access point nearer to York way because of the steep ramp, which makes the access point a bad engineering solution for British Rail. Furthermore, the disruption and disturbance of residents in Balfe street should also be taken into account. For all those reasons, it would be sensible to accept the amendment.
Amendment No. 10 seeks to delete Balfe street from the rods to be dug up in the construction of a replacement of the York way sewer. When the works are undertaken, Balfe street will be surrounded by construction work. The amendment is an attempt to remove just one small and unnecessary part of the work that will be inflicted on Balfe street residents. Work No. 13, to which the amendment relates, is a sewer diversion required by the position of the low-level station. At present, the sewer runs down the line at York way, but it will have to be diverted once the enormous low-level box is created by the Bill. The


proposed sewer will run along Railway street from York way and then down Balfe street to Caledonian road, where it will join the existing sewer. So the proposed diversion route will include a new sewer running straight down Balfe street.
Although alternatives were put to the British Rail engineer in Committee, they were rejected for various reasons. However, two weeks after the Committee finally reported, British Rail announced that the sewer could be tunnelled after all and said that there was no need to dig up Balfe street because it could tunnel from the existing sewer to a proposed sewer. That was said at a meeting on 22 May 1991, whereas the Committee had reported on 8 May 1991.
My amendment would remove Balfe street from the list of streets that should be dug up in order to carry out sewer works. It simply seeks to give practical legislative effect to British Rail's claim that it does not need to dig up Balfe street, that it can achieve that sewer diversion by tunnelling. If BR is certain that it can achieve that and that it can carry out the necessary sewer diversion work without having to dig up the whole of the middle of Balfe street, with all the inevitable noise, disturbance and disruption, that will be extremely welcome to the residents. Those residents are already suffering 24 hours a day, seven days a week because of the work that is going on. As a result of the amendment, another additional item of work, which would have an impact on those residents, would be removed.
9.30 pm
That is the import of my amendments. Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 relate to work that British Rail does not need to include in this Bill because London Underground has extracted them and put them in another Bill. Amendment No. 9 relates to an access point, which is not needed because an alternative already exists, as well as another alternative in another Bill. If that work were persisted with, it would create many difficulties for the residents. Amendment No. 10 relates to the diversion of the sewer and the inclusion of work in Balfe street. However, BR has agreed that that work is not specifically required, because the necessary diversion could be achieved by other means.
The amendments are specific and reasonable, and I trust that they will commend themselves to the House. I hope that the sponsor of the Bill will feel able to accept some of my amendments.

Mr. Waller: I am happy to tell the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) and the House that amendments Nos. 7 and 8 are acceptable to the promoters.
As the hon. Gentleman explained, those amendments effectively leave out works Nos. 01 and 014. Those works are safety measures recommended in the Fennell report and would be carried out by London Underground Limited. Due to the delay that had been encountered by the promoters of the Bill, London Underground has decided that those essential safety works should be authorised in a separate Bill to be enacted as soon as possible. The London Underground (King's Cross) Bill was therefore deposited in November and provides for the construction of similar works, which will supersede works Nos. 01 and 014. The House will be aware that the latter Bill is expected to be enacted in the current Session. Accordingly, the promoters of this Bill are content to agree

to the amendments on the ground that the powers in the Bill are otiose, to repeat the word used by the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury.
I am sorry that amendment No. 9 is not acceptable because it would remove from the Bill the power to form a means of access to Railway street at point A8, as shown on the deposited plans. The power to make an alternative access is being sought by the BR board in the King's Cross Railways (No. 2) Bill, which was deposited in Parliament during this Session. If that Bill is enacted to include that power, the board has acknowledged that it would not then need to make the access at point A8. At this stage it would be premature for the Bill to be amended as proposed since it would not then confer on the board the complete package of powers that are necessary to construct the access point.
The board is prepared to give an undertaking to Parliament at this stage that, if the King's Cross Railways (No. 2) Bill is enacted in a form authorising the board to construct an alternative access on to York way at point A27, as shown in the plans deposited in connection with the No. 2 Bill, it will not exercise the power proposed in this Bill to construct the means of access on to Railway street at point A8. I trust that the hon. Gentleman will welcome that assurance.
Amendment No. 10 is not acceptable either. Its effect would be that the board would not have the power temporarily to stop up or open up the surface of Balfe street. Presumably the amendment was tabled—naturally enough—for the protection of the constituents of the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury who are owners and occupiers of properties in Balfe street and who are to be affected by works at the rear of their properties. It is possible to construct the Balfe street portion of work 13—that is, the sewer—by tunnelling, but it should be understood that some opening up will still be necessary in some places. That is why this provision is vital. Obviously, the board regrets any inconvenience to the owners and occupiers of properties in Balfe street, but the power to open up the street is essential to enable the board to carry out the works required for the diversion of the main sewer.

Mr. Chris Smith: The hon. Gentleman has asserted that it is necessary for the board to be able to dig up parts of Balfe street in order to open up for the works, even if the sewer is tunnelled. Is he saying that, in order to construct the tunnel, it is necessary to dig up the surface of the road? That is not credible. Or is he saying that there may be some other purpose in digging up Balfe street? If so, it would be helpful to know exactly what purpose the board has in mind.

Mr. Waller: As I understand it, most of the work originally intended to be carried out by opening up much of the length of the street is now to be carried out in tunnelling, but it is necessary to have access to that tunnelling work. That is why there needs to be some opening up of the street.
In evidence given before the Select Committee, the duration of the portion of works affecting Balfe street was estimated at about nine weeks. There will be disturbance during those nine weeks but I submit that that is a relatively short period considering that the entire works required for the King's Cross project will take a number of years to be brought to fruition.
I have been able to accept two amendments, which I hope will be to the satisfaction of the hon. Gentleman, and I have been able to give him one assurance, which I hope that he will welcome. I am sorry that I cannot go further, but I am sure that he will understand that the BR board has been anxious to accommodate him as far as it lies within its power to do so.

Mr. Chris Smith: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. Gentleman have the leave of the House to speak again?

Hon. Members: Aye.

Mr. Smith: The hon. Member for Keighley is the bearer of partially good news. The good news is to be welcomed, but before discussing the amendments that he has accepted, I wish to deal with amendments Nos. 9 and 10.
The hon. Gentleman said in connection with amendment No. 9—the deletion of access point A8—that, if British Rail were not given the necessary powers in this Bill, its powers would be incomplete, but that it was seeking alternative arrangements, and that, if they went ahead, it would not want to proceed with A8. The hon. Gentleman phrased his undertaking extremely carefully, however. He gave us an undertaking that access point A8 would not be used and the powers conferred by the Bill in respect of that access point would not be invoked if access point A27, off York way, were given approval.
We are not talking only about British Rail's alternative access point off York way—A27: we are talking also about other proposed access points off York way, which the local residents have proposed as better alternatives to A27. I hope that the undertaking that has been given by the hon. Member for Keighley applies not only to A27, but to any other access point off York way that might in due course be agreed between British Rail and the objectors to the Bill.
I am disappointed by what the hon. Member for Keighley said about amendment No. 10. I remain unconvinced and puzzled by his statement that, despite the fact that the sewer along the Balfe street line can be tunnelled, there will still need to be some access from the surface down to the tunnelled sewer. Knowing that Balfe street is not particularly long—I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows this also—I must confess that I find it difficult to see why it is necessary to gain access from the surface of the middle of a relatively short street when one is tunnelling from one end of the street to the other. But that is what the hon. Gentleman has said; it is what British Rail handed him a note to say.
I hope that that point will be reconsidered in due course. If there is no genuine need to get from the surface to the tunnel in Balfe street, there should be no need to dig up that street and to make the lives of my constituents even more of a nightmare than would otherwise be the case.
The hon Member for Keighley betrayed the fallacy of that argument when he said, "What is nine weeks of disturbance compared to the overall period of disturbance that people in the King's Cross area will have to put up with?" That simply reveals how cheaply British Rail is treating the lives and the quality of life of the people who live in the King's Cross area. The people of Balfe street will have to put up with possibly upwards of eight years of

constant work immediately outside their homes. As I explained in our debate a couple of weeks ago, much of that work—

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Is my hon. Friend aware that, when discussions have taken place on the building of the Jubilee line through various expensive and salubrious parts of London, there has been the most detailed consideration of disturbance, including that caused to Parliament square where some of the works will be carried out? However, the House is apparently proposing to force eight years of disturbance on my hon. Friend's constituents in Balfe street and to do so in this cavalier fashion. Should not British Rail have a bit more consideration for the local people who have grown up and lived with the sound of the railway station and created a decent community around it, but will now see all that torn apart?

Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I welcome his support on that point. The residents of Balfe street are prime among the people who will be affected by the works. As I have said, the works will continue for eight years—seven days a week, 24 hours a day. That work will take place right outside people's homes. I am sure that the hon. Member for Keighley would not feel particularly happy if such work were to be undertaken next door to his home for eight years.
The hon. Member for Keighley said, in effect, "These people will have to put up with eight years' worth of work, so what's another nine weeks?" It is nine weeks of even more intense noise and disturbance because not only will the back of their homes be being pounded by piledrivers, bulldozers, digging and building but the front of their homes will be pounded by the access works that are required for the sewers. My constituents should not have to put up with this extra work, especially as the hon. Gentleman has not made the case that the work is necessary.

Mr. Corbyn: Will my hon. Friend reflect on the personal lives of people affected by this? An elderly constituent of mine with a heart condition applied to the local authority for rehousing and, last year, I was delighted to be able to tell him that he had been offered permanent accommodation in a council property in Balfe street. I wonder about the safety of this person. I thought that I had got him safely rehoused but now he is faced with eight years of work going on outside the house in which he thought that he would live for the rest of his days.

Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. Many people have lived in Balfe street for many years. Others have moved in recently because there is good quality accommodation created over many years by the London borough of Islington. The lives of those people will be affected by the work set out in the Bill and amendment No. 10 would make things just a little easier for them, if that is possible. I do not believe that British Rail requires access from street level down to the tunnel if it is able to tunnel along the sewer. That may need to be considered further in another place.
I am glad that the hon. Member for Keighley has accepted amendments Nos. 7 and 8. That is not much of a concession, because these works are anyway included in another Bill. Nonetheless, we wish the authority for these


works Godspeed on to the statute book. I hope that the London Underground (King's Cross) Bill will reach the statute book soon. When it does so, there will be no need to include works 01 and 014 in this Bill. Therefore, I hope that the House will agree to amendments Nos. 7 and 8.
Amendments made: No. 7, in page 20, line 50 leave out from beginning to end of line 3 on page 21.
No. 8, in page 22, leave out lines 28 to 33.—[Mr. Chris Smith.]
Order for Third Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

Mr. Smith: I shall not trespass on the time of the House by rehearsing some of the arguments that we have made in the many debates on the Bill about the rightness or otherwise of King's Cross as the location for the second international station. I have made my view clear on a number of occasions. I do not believe that it is the right location, although I fully understand the views and wishes of colleagues representing constituencies to the north, who wish for good-quality connections from the north via an international station to the channel tunnel. I share that objective, but I question whether King's Cross is the right location.
I accept that there is an honest disagreement between my hon. Friends and myself in that regard, but I do not believe that King's Cross can cope with an extra 15 million passengers every year. Anyone who has travelled through King's Cross will know that station is already the most overcrowded interchange—both below and above ground —in London. To impose that scale of extra passenger load on an already overcrowded facility would create enormous problems for the immediate area and the passengers who attempt to use that station.
I have frequently argued that case, and still hold to it —but the House has shown in several votes that it takes a different view, and believes that King's Cross is the right location for the second international station. I hope, however, that the Government and my hon. Friends on the Front Bench—soon to become members of the Government—accept that, even if they think that King's Cross is the right location in principle, that does not mean that every jot and tittle of British Rail's specific proposals offers the best way of achieving that objective.
In our debate two weeks ago, I raised the specific issue of the Bill's buffer zone provision, which seeks to ensure that those living in the immediate area of the proposed station will be protected when the works are undertaken. I subsequently exchanged correspondence with British Rail's solicitor, Mr. Osborne, about the properties on the east side of Northdown street, which were not included in the specific buffer zone—that is, the area protected by British Rail's agreement to the Committee's requirements.
I argued that British Rail had failed fully to fulfil its undertaking to the Committee, but its solicitor—to whom I am grateful for replying so promptly—replied that it had done so. He sticks to his original assertion that properties on the east side of Northdown street do not need to be included in the buffer zone.
Having expressed a belief that he was still right in principle, the solicitor to British Rail concluded his letter to me of 28 January:
However, as a concession to you"— a concession to me personally, that is—

we will extend the buffer zone to include properties with a frontage onto so much of the east side of Northdown street as is situated between Pentonville Road and Collier Street.
That is a welcome concession, and I am grateful to British Rail.
We should consider the general question of what the proposals will cost. It is all very well to pass a private Bill and then to think that the job is done, but—as my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) pointed out earlier—unless we can be certain that the Government will come up with the money that will enable British Rail to undertake the work, we may find, having spent three years debating the Bill and waited several more months for the other place to debate it, that there is no money to finance that work.
As we all know, when the station was first mooted, the estimate of the costs was about £400 million or £500 million. That was bad enough, but British Rail's most recent estimates—and they are now several months old —mention a total cost of some £1.4 billion. That amount is made up of £610 million for the facilities for channel tunnel and Kent commuter services, £220 million for Thameslink and £570 million for the other works—including the new passenger concourse, new lines into St. Pancras and railway works to facilitate the development of the London Regeneration Consortium land.
At the end of last week, I wrote to the hon. Member for Keighley to ask whether an updated estimate had been produced, relating specifically to the railway works included in the Bill. I have received no response from the hon. Gentleman; he may wish to enlighten us now. For the moment, we have only that enormous figure of £1.4 billion. We know that the Government enthusiastically support the Bill, because they are unofficially whipping to ensure that it is passed. We are entitled to ask the Government whether, in their enthusiastic support for the Bill, they are aware of the enormous magnitude of its financial implications.

Mr. Tony Banks: I assume that my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) is referring in part to the article in the Evening Standard of Monday 27 January headed "Chunnel doubts grow over King's Cross". The article states that the costs
have escalated"—
It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the King's Cross Railways Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Patnick.]
Question again proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

Mr. Banks: The article states:
estimates of the project's cost have escalated from £457 million to £1.4 billion"—
the figure mentioned by my hon. Friend—and that it is possible that the scheme will not go ahead. Under those circumstances, I ask him whether it would be wise for the House to proceed with the Bill tonight. Before he answers, and in order to assist all hon. Members, perhaps he will say whether, like me, he wants to press the Bill to a vote at the end of Third Reading?

Mr. Smith: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) for drawing my attention to the article in the Evening


Standard. I am indeed minded to seek a vote on Third Reading at the end of what I hope will be a relatively brief debate.
The issue of finance raised in the Evening standard article to which my hon. Friend draws attention is extremely important. The Government are fond of asking where the money is coming from, but they are supporting a project which, according to old estimates which will probably have to be updated, will cost £1.4 billion. However, the Government do not appear to be currently giving any commitment to provide funds or even to give British Rail the necessary borrowing authority.
The railways division of the Department of Transport wrote a letter to one of my constituents, Mr. R. H. Keynes, of Keystone crescent, whose home will be directly affected by the works. My constituent had sought assurances from the Minister about the financing of the proposed station. The Department of Transport replied:
Turning to your letter to Mr. Freeman, I cannot answer your detailed questions about the financing of the station, as we have yet to see a full, up-to-date, case on this from BR. The letter continued:
The answers to your specific questions to the Minister, are, therefore, that we have seen a certain amount of information on the cost of the King's Cross project"—
we should like to know what that certain amount of
information is—
and the projected revenues before giving consent to the deposit of the Bill.
That was three years ago—the Bill was deposited in 1988. A lot of time has elapsed, there has been a lot of inflation, many cost recalculations, and many changes in the route to get to King's Cross, and many other considerations, such as the creation of Stratford as a major interchange, have intervened in the meantime. The Department of Transport goes on:
But the project has altered considerably since"—
the Department admits that—
and a lot of that information is no longer current, particularly on the revenue side. We do not therefore know at this stage whether the station will meet the Government's investment criteria.
In other words, not only do we not have in front of us an exact cost for the works that are being voted through in this Bill—we have to go on the basis of an outdated figure of £1.4 billion, which is in itself an enormous amount—but the Government are saying that they do not have the foggiest idea whether the amount involved will accord with their investment criteria. The Government are dragooning their troops to push the Bill through the House despite the fact that they do not have the faintest idea how they or British Rail will pay for it. That is something of which we ought to be extremely wary.

Mr. Corbyn: During the passage of this Bill, my hon. Friend has made himself an expert on the subject. That being the case, perhaps he can help me. If British Rail goes ahead with the building of this station at a cost of £1.4 billion, what sort of income will it need to secure from the capital developments to service the loan, bearing in mind the fact that the Minister has often said that the Government will put no money into the project?

Mr. Smith: If British Raik were seeking to finance this project entirely out of the relatively small amount of revenue that will come to the station from the operation of the services and from the surrounding property

development, it would find that impossible. Even with the property market at its height—I do not need to remind the House that it is not at the height at the moment—British Rail would not be able to cover the £billion capital cost out of its profit from property development or out of revenue from running the trains.
Of course, that is not a debate that the Government have yet entered into. They have not even set out their parameters for the financing of the station. The only figure that they have been prepared to come up with is bad enough—the initial cost of all the preparatory work involved in making drawings, hiring expensive barristers to put the Bill through the House, and so on.
Last week, I tabled a written question about precisely these costs:
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what funds are being made available to British Rail for design and other work in connection with planning and preparation of the King's Cross project.
The reply that I was given is as follows:
The external finance limit for BR next year will be £2,041 million. This will allow BR to spend £66 million on design and preparatory work for the King's Cross, Thameslink 2000 and channel tunnel rail link projects."—[Official Report, 27 January 1992; Vol. 202, c. 404–5.]
It is worth pointing out that Thameslink 2000 has been put back a year. The Bill will be deposited next November instead of last November. Therefore, the great bulk of the money to which that answer refers is for the King's Cross and channel tunnel rail link projects. We know that the Government have already given British Rail approval to spend £66 million—an awful lot of money—on the preparatory work. That, of course, makes even more important the question of the ultimate financing. If the Government are prepared to put £66 million into the work now, as well as dragooning hon. Members to push this Bill through the House, they must have—certainly they ought to have—a clearer idea of how they will behave in relation to the ultimate funding of the project when British Rail wants to start work.
Apart from the issue of financing the work—

Mr. Corbyn: The question of financing is important. As the future funding of the project is so uncertain and vague, are we to assume either that there is a private understanding between British Rail and the Government that the Government will pay the capital cost, or that the capital cost will be taken from other British Rail capital investment programmes, such as rail electrification?

Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend raises an extremely important point. I simply remind the House of some of the items of expenditure which British Rail seeks to undertake. All are extremely worthwhile projects, including the upgrading of the west coast main line at a cost of £750 million and the electrification of the midlands main line at a cost of £315 million.

Mr. Cryer: I caution my hon. Friend about using those figures. The east coast main line has been electrified, according to figures provided by the Minister, at a cost of £470 million. At 1990–91 prices, the original cost of the west coast main line electrification in the 1960s was £1,900 million. In other words—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. None of this has anything to do with the Third Reading debate.

Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. All those points have been covered—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This is not a point of order. The hon. Gentleman knows better than to start challenging my ruling.

Mr. Smith: I certainly—

Mr. Cryer: The King's Cross development may draw money away from the projects that my hon. Friend has listed. The Government figures for investment, although accurate, represents investment on the cheap and not the full cost required for a decent job.

Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend may be right. I do not claim to be an expert on the detailed financing of particular aspects of railway work, but I know that there are many useful and worthwhile projects which British Rail could undertake. Apart from the projects that I have mentioned, there is the electrification of the trans-Pennine routes, the electrification of the Perth-Inverness line, the modernisation of the London, Tilbury and Southend line, Thameslink 2000 and the potential modernisation of the north Kent line.
Those are important and worthwhile projects, and we must ask the Government where the money for them will come from, especially if £1.4 billion is gobbled up by the proposals for King's Cross.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I know that my hon. Friend realises that many north-west and north-east Members have been careful not to intervene in the debate because we understand the strength of feeling in my hon. Friend's constituency. I hope that my hon. Friend will bear in mind the fact that there is another calculation which he has not mentioned. What will happen to all those projects if none of them has access to the channel tunnel and to the rapid movement of freight and passengers around the London area? Without the King's Cross terminal, there may be real problems.

Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend is mistaken in including freight in her remarks, because the Bill contains no proposals on freight. The proposal is not for freight traffic to go through King's Cross. That issue is completely separate from the Bill.
Precisely this question was raised at an earlier stage in our discussions, and I pointed out then that the Government had not come clean at all on the issue of freight and what would happen to freight. I share the desire of my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) in wanting to see not just passenger traffic but freight able to make a direct contact with the channel tunnel from all parts of the country, especially the north and the north-west. I share her desire to ensure that the channel tunnel becomes a tool for economic regeneration around the country.
This Bill, however, has nothing whatever to do with the movement of goods from the north of the country to the channel tunnel. It does have something to do with the movement of passengers from the north of the country to the channel tunnel, but, as I have already explained, I do not believe that King's Cross is essential to achieve that end. However, even if one takes the view that King's Cross is essential, there are better and more appropriate ways of building and developing a new station at King's Cross than the one that British Rail has effectively forced upon

us. Considerations of finance are important in relation to that, because I do not believe that British Rail has to build an underground station in order to achieve its purpose.
What impact will the proposed station have on its environment and especially on traffic? According to British Rail and the Department of Transport's own published estimates, the new low-level station will double the number of rail passengers passing through the King's Cross station complex during the morning peak hours. It will double the number of vehicles that will come into King's Cross or St. Pancras during the morning peak hours.
The station and office development together will increase the traffic on Euston road during the evening peak hours by 70 per cent. Anyone who has tried travelling in a bus or car on Euston road in the evening rush hour will know that it is bad enough at present; to impose an additional 70 per cent. of traffic on that major artery will cause enormous congestion. That takes no account of the 100 per cent. increase in traffic which is likely to occur in the morning peak hours.
British Rail and the Government must therefore take some notice, at the very least, of the traffic implications of the Bill. It is all very well to say, as I am sure the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) will say—because it is what British Rail has said for months—that the great majority of passengers coming into King's Cross on the channel tunnel trains will go to further destinations by public transport, but there will also be many hundreds of thousands of passengers in a year who will want to be met by friends in cars, who will want to get on to coaches if they are in large parties or who will want to take taxis.
The traffic implications of what is proposed are enormous, and I hope that British Rail and the Government will take cognisance of the fact that we do not want to create around King's Cross a traffic jam far worse than anything that we have to put up with at present.

Mr. Corbyn: My hon. Friend knows King's Cross well. I am not aware of any proposal to upgrade the Piccadilly or Victoria lines, which carry the majority of passengers to and from King's Cross. If those lines cannot cope during the rush hour at present, how will they cope with double the traffic?

Mr. Smith: My hon. Friends makes a valid point. British Rail has consistently argued that people will get off the channel tunnel trains and get on to one of the five underground lines going through King's Cross station, and that that will somehow solve the problem of increased passenger traffic. It will not. Even if a new underground concourse is built—that is one of the proposals that is being advanced—nowhere in the Bill is it proposed that a single extra train should run on the Victoria, Piccadilly or Northern lines, or on any of the other lines that run through King's Cross. The tube trains are already packed during the rush hour, and there is no proposal in the Bill to ensure that extra services are provided. Both below ground and above it, the traffic implications will be absolutely massive.
I have explained why I think that the Government should come clean on the financing of the project and why the traffic and congestion implications of the proposals will be enormously painful for the King's Cross area. In addition to all that, my constituents will have to put up with untold damage to their lives, homes, shops and other properties—both immediately and in the years to come.


It is worth reminding the House what the Bill, if enacted in its present form, would involve: the loss of 83 homes, the displacement of 326 residents, the demolition of four listed buildings, the destruction of well over 10 acres of property in two conservation areas, the destruction of a two-acre inner-city nature reserve of great value to the local community, the loss of 168 workplaces providing 1,620 jobs, the loss of 58 shops, 38 of which provide key services to local people, the diversion of a major traffic artery for a period of three years, a doubling of the number of rail passengers and a doubling of the number of cars and taxis coming to King's Cross and St. Pancras during the morning peak hour.
In addition to all that, the project will involve six years of construction work on the station and two years of construction work on the post-station development. That work will be in progress 24 hours a day, seven days a week. It will be taking place immediately beside, behind and in front of the homes of a large number of my constituents.
Sincerely though I respect the wish of hon. Members on both sides of the House to ensure that their constituents can benefit from access to the channel tunnel—I have no desire to stand in the way of their efforts to make that wish come true—I urge that the interests of my constituents, who will have to put up with untold misery for an extended eight-year period, should be given closer consideration than BR has given them hitherto. BR could have come to us at the outset and said, "King's Cross has to be the location for a whole series of railway reasons, but let us talk about how best to ensure that the building of the station has minimal impact on local people and their lives."
If it had done that, we might have had a sensible dialogue with British Rail, but it did not. It came forward with these proposals, and it has attempted to bludgeon them through the House. It was, quite rightly, fiercely criticised by the Select Committee for the way in which it behaved in trying to get its proposals through the Committee and the House. It has not listened on a whole series of points, even though I am very grateful that amendments have been agreed to in the course of our debate this evening.
I shall vote against the Third Reading of the Bill tonight, but my intention is not to deprive the north of access to the channel tunnel. That is the last thing in my mind. My intention is to try to persuade British Rail and the Government to take more reasonable notice of the needs, requirements and quality of life of my constituents.

The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Roger Freeman): I am grateful for the opportunity to record the fact that the Government support the Bill and encourage all hon. Members to vote in favour of Third Reading, so that the Bill can proceed to another place for further consideration.
The Government support British Rail's plan to have the terminus of a high speed rail link at King's Cross. They also support the plans of London Underground to have, under the powers of this Bill, extensive work carried out at King's Cross to improve facilities there and also to

improve commuter services—the Thameslink services which run north-south through King's Cross. These are all laudable aims.
The hon. Members for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) and for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) referred to an article in the Evening Standard. May I make it plain, as my Department has done consistently over the past three years of consideration of the Bill in the House, that this is indeed a mammoth project, that the appraisals of such a project inevitably change over time as the project changes in costs and revenue. It is not possible to come to a firm conclusion about this project in financial terms at the moment.
British Rail remains convinced that, the appraisal tests that we have set can be met; that is to say, for InterCity and for the international services, an 8 per cent. return. For the social services, that is for Thameslink and for the underground services in London, wider social benefits are taken into account, such as road decongestion, social regeneration and economic benefits to the City of London through such construction.
British Rail remains convinced that, when it puts the detailed investment proposition to us, once planning permission is obtained, it will pass the appraisal test. The House would not expect me to give any assurances about the timing of construction and the extent to which the investment appraisal test will be met. But the Government are committed to the Bill. We believe very strongly that planning permission should be given to permit construction to start, to bring benefits not only to the metropolis but to the north-east, the north-west and other parts of the country to which rail services will run from King's Cross to other great cities in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Corbyn: Before the Minister leaves this subject of the cost of the development, could he be more specific about it? British Rail has given a figure of £1.4 billion for the construction of the station complex. The Minister has said that there will be appraisal tests for the rail linkages in and out of it and their viability in return on capital, and so forth. He has not said what return on capital will have to be attained from the station in order to service the loan to construct the station, unless he intends to make a very large Government grant available for that construction.

Mr. Freeman: I hoped that I had made it quite plain that there are several different constituent parts of the project. For the non-commercial parts of the operation, the Government's present procedure for funding such investments, for example by Network SouthEast or London Underground, is to take into account, where appropriate, the wider non-user benefits—I gave the House examples of such non-user benefits—and to finance London Underground by grant and British Rail by passenger service obligation grant, which is a revenue grant, and then by loan sanction permission to borrow. The revenue impact for social railway investment is met by increases in the passenger service obligation grant. If the hon. Gentleman wants to table a question or write to me, I shall be glad to enlarge upon that.
As I have said, the Government support the Bill. We think that it is appropriate not only that King's Cross should be the terminus for a rail link but that underground and Network SouthEast facilities should be improved at that station. We urge the House to give the Bill a Third reading.

Mr. Snape: I, too, will be extremely brief. I believe that there are objectives that should be endorsed, not because the Bill favours one part of the country at the expense of another but because an international terminal, as well as a through station, at King's Cross will benefit the whole country. Indeed, I believe, as do many of my hon. Friends, that from a railway point of view there is no alternative to King's Cross.
That is not to say that the Minister has not left questions unanswered, not least the one just put to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn). We are confused about the financing of this great development. The Evening Standard article, to which he referred, emphasises his confusion. The terms in which he wrote to various organisations, talking about commercial viability or otherwise, also caused confusion.
The station will benefit not just international passengers. There will be benefits for domestic rail services to which the Minister referred. None of those benefits—neither those for the international services nor their domestic counterparts—could come from building the terminal anywhere else, such as Stratford or the other places which have been mentioned. Because of the geographical location of King's Cross and its easy connections to other parts of the country, it is not just the obvious choice but the only choice.
I have been involved for many years with the channel tunnel project as a whole and its associated terminal at King's Cross. I think that I am the only hon. Member to have served on two Select Committees on the channel tunnel. During the period in which the Conservatives have been in power it was said, first, that we needed only one terminal, Waterloo. Then it was decided that we needed two terminals.
Originally, the Government and British Rail management said that there was no need for a dedicated rail route from the channel ports, and that we could manage with the existing railway infrastructure. Then it was said that we needed a dedicated rail route, which would pass through Kent, and which would obviously affect the prospects of some Conservative Members in marginal constituencies. Despite the need to spend hundreds of millions of pounds of public money on property acquisition, overnight we had the proposal for an eastern route into Stratford—a defeat for the Secretary of State, if we are to believe what we read in the newspapers, who wanted the original route.
The confusion about the project has been made worse by the Government's vacillation and indecision, and also by their lack of answers to my hon. Friends about where the finance for the project will come from.

Mr. Chris Smith: My hon. Friend is right in the point that he is putting to the Minister. He will recall that, when British Rail proposed that Waterloo should be the first channel tunnel station, not only did it say that one station was sufficient and that it did not need a second one but, in the case which it put to the House of Lords during the discussions, it said specifically that King's Cross was not an appropriate location for a second station. British Rail was ruling out King's Cross at that stage, yet two or three years later BR tells us that King's Cross is essential.

Mr. Snape: My hon. Friend underlines the confusion which has reigned over the project, certainly during the past decade and probably for some time before that.
On the point about additional traffic the Minister overlooked the fact that the new terminal will be a combination of King's Cross and St. Pancras, which, from a railway point of view, is considerably under-utilised. I have no figures on the throughput of passengers in those stations' heyday, but I hazard a guess that considerably more passengers now use the combined stations.

Mr. Corbyn: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Snape: With respect, I shall not give way because my hon. Friend has not been present for much of the debate. I know that he wants to speak on Third Reading and no doubt he will make his point later.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North agrees that the total number of passengers using King's Cross and St. Pancras in those stations' heyday was considerably more than the number who use the combined stations today. I am worried when people say that it is fine to live next to a railway station but that one must never use it to its full capacity. That does not appear to be sensible—

Mr. Corbyn: Who says that?

Mr. Snape: Various pressure groups make that point about both the London terminuses. They are apparently quite relaxed about living next to railway stations, provided they are not used to their full capacity. I neither understand nor share that view.
I realise that my hon. Friends who represent constituencies in other parts of the country are still waiting to hear something that was implied during the passage of the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) says that the Bill has been railroaded through the House, but I remind him that it is three long years since it was introduced. If that is a railroad, it is pretty slow, and I would not look forward to travelling on it.
None of us believes that a real alternative to King's Cross exists, although we are not particularly happy about British Rail's proposals. I give my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury an undertaking that we are committed to a terminal at King's Cross, but we are not necessarily committed to the expensive and grandiose project, which seems to depend on property values that were optimistic three or four years ago and are hopelessly pessimistic now. I hope that the Minister will attempt, in his final few weeks in office, to clarify exactly which part of the station the Government are prepared to support financially. So far, an answer on that has been lacking from him and other Ministers.
After three years, it is time to draw this saga to a close. I hope that my hon. Friends will support the Bill, because the principle of a terminal station and an international channel tunnel station at King's Cross cannot be challenged.

Mr. Waller: I shall not strain the good will of hon. Members who have supported the Bill by speaking for more than a few moments. I should like to speak longer, because the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) spoke about the losses that he envisages would be incurred by the development of the station at King's Cross, and if I had the time I should love to expand on the economic benefits that could be achieved


in employment terms, the environmental benefits that would accrue to the area and the safety benefits that would be brought about by the Fennell provisions in the Bill.
However, I shall desist from following that course and merely state that the co-ordinated package of works in the Bill will make King's Cross a first-class interchange between international trains and inter-city services from the east midlands, the north and Scotland, as well as to and from Thameslink and London Underground services. With the short transfer to Euston station, passengers will have an interchange to and from the north-west and the midlands.
The Bill will also provide for the expansion of the successful Thameslink service and create new cross-London routes. It will enable the promoters greatly to improve capacity and the safety of passenger flows at the London underground station. Several hon. Gentlemen referred to the problems that will result from the increased throughput of passengers. However, the concourse will be enlarged and the facilities will be compatible with the new British Rail station, which will be able to handle many more passengers.
There has been a highly informed debate on the King's Cross Bill since the day my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) moved the Second Reading in May 1989. My hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman) was originally associated with the Bill. He has spoken with authority on other transport-related Bills. It took an historic 53 days to get the Bill through Committee, under the expert chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton), who was present on the Front Bench today. It is curious that those two hon. Gentlemen were snatched away from their work on the Bill to enter the Whips Office.
I thank all those who have contributed to the debate, not least the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury, who has stoutly defended the interests of his constituents as he sees them. I also thank all those other hon. Members who have supported the Bill loyally on a number of occasions because they believe that it is in the best interests of the country.
I now ask for the Bill to be allowed to move swiftly to another place. I commend it to the House.

Mr. Corbyn: I must tell the House, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) so graciously remarked, that I was not here for part of the debate. I had a prior engagement that I could not break, but I was present for the latter one and half hours of the debate.
I intend to vote against the Third Reading of the Bill. I must put on record the appreciation felt by many people in the borough of Islington of the work done by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith). He has sought to protect his constituency and the environment of London by arguing for some sane planning principles for the construction of a major railway station of national importance.
The project should not be pushed through the House by means of the private Bill procedure, which is wholly inappropriate. The Government appear to hide behind British Rail when it suits them and behind the private Bill

procedure and financial gobbledegook when it suits them. They have not a clue about what they intend to do about the station.
The hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) has assiduously promoted this awful project. He has said that we may be approaching its final stage and that it is about to go to the other place. Is that really so? After all, the Minister has admitted that he does not know where the money for the project will come from. He is still thinking about that. He has had only three years to think about that, but, obviously, that is not long enough.
The Minister is aware that land prices in London are falling. However, the entire finance for the project is supposed to come from the development of property in the area to the north of King's Cross. That proposition is simply not feasible because there is not enough money to be made from that property. Therefore, the money for the project must either come from Government grant—the Minister's predecessors set their faces against such grants for major railway construction—or money must be taken away from other BR capital projects. However, those projects are dear to the hearts of many people.
Does BR intend to spend £1.4 billion on the construction of the station and £400 million on the construction of the link between Stratford and King's Cross in tunnel? The Secretary of State has confirmed that that link must be in tunnel. We are talking about the expenditure of £2 billion on a railway project. However, even at the zenith of the London property boom, sufficient money could not have been raised from office development to the north of King's Cross.
Those who think that we have heard the last of this subject should think again. I have a feeling that, in about a year, BR will quietly announce that it cannot afford the project after all. We will then end up with a half-baked rail network. A new line will run through Kent to an under-utilised and under-developed station in Stratford; all because BR is not prepared to allow it to be the major terminal. BR will be unable to afford the link through to King's Cross and Waterloo will be the inadequate terminal for channel tunnel trains for a long time until that new line through Kent is built. When that happens, some trains will go to Waterloo and some to Stratford. That will provide a totally unsatifactory link to the channel tunnel.
Those colleagues who believe that those of us who are anti the development at King's Cross are anti the rest of the country should think again.
We are arguing for a sane and sensible process of railway planning for major projects. British Rail has spent a great deal of money in the past three years on public relations and lobbying exercises and on printing super-glossy documents. One can hardly move around King's Cross for BR consultants stopping one in the street to explain what a good thing it would be to have one's house knocked down to make way for the station.
That the channel tunnel will be built is obvious—it is happening. That the links with London will be built at some stage is less obvious—I hope that they will be. I urge colleagues to consider for a moment in whose interests this massive project is supposed to work. Many hon. Members, particularly Labour Members, seem to be labouring under the illusion that King's Cross will somehow aid the economic development of the north of England, and of Wales and Scotland, because it will improve freight transportation through to the channel tunnel. The development as proposed has nothing to do with freight


transport: it is a passenger terminal and station. Developing economic links between this country and France and the other European countries will not be achieved by building King's Cross station, because it does nothing for freight transport.
My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury ably discussed the effects on the area in detail. I can understand that some hon. Members are desperate to get the King's Cross development built because they think that it will speed their passage to a channel tunnel train and thence to Europe. Dedicated trains need not go though King's Cross if it is not the terminal. They can go around to Stratford and on from there. Non-dedicated trains—InterCity trains—would go to King's Cross and if the terminal was at Stratford passengers would have to transfer to Stratford.
Non-dedicated trains coming from the north-west would go to Euston. Therein lies a problem. Everyone knows that it is not exactly next door to King's Cross or St. Pancras. That is thanks to the free-enterprise railway developments of the 1840s and 1850s—instead of developing a proper London terminal, several of them were developed. That problem remains with us to this day.
British Rail talks grandly of a travelator running between Euston and King's Cross. When that was first proposed, it was forgotten that the Government were also building the British Library, which goes down five floors underground—a bit deep for a travelator, unless it is a big dipper sort of travelator. So that connection is not possible.
How passengers, therefore, are to get from Euston to the new channel tunnel terminal at King's Cross is unclear, unless they are to walk or take a bus running through the traffic in Euston road. That serious problem has not been dealt with. Those in the north-west or the west of England who think that they will have a direct link to the channel tunnel terminal are wrong. But people in the west of England may well have a direct link into a channel tunnel station at Stratford if the crossrail construction goes ahead. All these issues seem to be passing the House by.
My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury argued reasonably for some environmental protection for his constituents around the station, but his arguments have been brushed aside as though he were obstructing national progress and singlehandedly holding up the economic boom that this country is thrusting towards. Would any hon. Member tolerate in his constituency, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year, for eight years, unrestricted work on a major construction site?
This Bill is a Trojan horse for other major developments in other areas. If it is good enough for wealthy commuter areas of the country to have protection from motorway building contractors—traffic schemes, banking works and all the other improvements that they rightly demand and get—it is good enough for people in inner city areas to enjoy the same protection. Other hon. Members might care to reflect on those issues before allowing the scheme to go through.
My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury said that eight listed buildings would be destroyed. We are talking about an interesting and historic area. Damage would also be caused to the Camley street open space. That might seem totally irrelevant to those who come from the rolling acres of hunting country, but the Camley street open space is precious to the children

and young people who developed that land into a natural park. I know that it will be replaced under British Rail's proposals—and will be slightly larger in area—but hurt will be caused to people who put an awful lot of effort into the development.
There is also the question of traffic and passenger usage of the area. My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East pointed out that St. Pancras station is underutilised. I tried to intervene to agree with him on that point and to ask him to agree with me that one problem with British Rail and London Underground is that they seem to imagine that more and more passengers can be brought into the King's Cross-St. Pancras complex without doing anything about the shortage of space on the underground trains that will then take those passengers.
It is no good bringing 15 million passengers a year into the King's Cross terminal unless there is some means of getting them away. If they cannot get on the Underground trains, they will go for a bus. If they cannot get on a bus, they will go for a taxi, but Euston road, Pentonville road and York way are already jammed, and that situation will get worse as a result of the development. That increase in traffic will lead to greater congestion and greater pollution, but apparently such things are of no concern to the planners behind the development or to the Government.
I shall oppose the Third Reading. I have a feeling that we shall all be back here again in the not-too-distant future, thinking again about the whole question of the lack of planning of this country's rail network. At the heart of this debate is the lack of importance that this country attaches to its rail network. I am a strong supporter of the rail network and the railway system. We cannot maintain a railway system by insisting on financing it by constantly creaming off and selling its assets year after year, and by insisting that new developments are financed by property speculation on the part of the railway board. That is not the way to do it.
We should take a leaf out of the books of other countries that have put large amounts of public investment into the railways, knowing that that will take traffic off the roads, reduce the level of air pollution and provide for a more efficient country. We are allowing some grandiose white elephant to be constructed around King's Cross without thinking of the implications for the rest of the country in terms of the loss of capital going into the project, the increase in traffic and pollution around the area and with the illusion that that somehow creates a better freight and passenger link to the continent, when we know that it will not.
There is a viable alternative just down the line at Stratford, where there is a large amount of open space that could be developed into a major terminal. King's Cross will be a secondary terminal, and I have a feeling that we shall end up with second best all round.

Mr. Cryer: I want to express some reservations about the Bill, basically because of the Government's lack of gratitude, to which my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) has referred. I am very much in favour of what my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) referred to as a doubling of railway passengers. I wish that the number of railway passengers would increase, with a commensurate expansion of the railway network.
However, we are talking here only about railway passengers, not about a very important component of railway traffic, especially for the manufacturing industries of the north, which many of us represent—and that is freight. If we are to reverse the domination of our roads by heavy wagons and road lorries, we must do something about getting freight off the roads and on to rail, but the Bill does nothing about that.
The Minister should have said that the Government are prepared to provide a guarantee, should the financial system on which British Rail depends fail to deliver. The Bart's hospital case—I cannot expand on that, because it is sub judice—has placed a major source of funds in peril, because the Government have forced British Rail to depend on development or property sales to provide the revenue to finance this £1.4 billion project.
I shall not go into the components of that figure, because several other hon. Members have already put them on the record. However, I am concerned because this project, which many hon. Members have described as grandiose, may soak up investment funds for the provincial areas of British Rail into King's Cross. Other projects would be of greater advantage to the north and the provincial sector than this one, which will put £1.4 billion into the construction and covering of one of the largest holes in the ground in Europe.
For example, the electrification of the midland main line out of St. Pancras is not one of the works in the Bill, but it would cost only £400 million under the rather cheap methods that has been imposed on British Rail, which is required to find an 8 per cent. return on capital investment. That has led to cuts in capital investment, which has meant that the east coast mainline electrification is becoming a byword for inconsistency and low levels of operation in adverse weather conditions.
Rather than supporting the Bill, we should be urging the Government to authorise the electrification of the midland main line up through Sheffield to Leeds. If a crossrail link were built in Bradford, for what would be a tiny amount of capital investment when compared to the £1.4 billion to be spent on King's Cross, there could be then be through trains running up the electrified midland main line, to Bradford interchange and across to Foster square and then up to Settle and Carlisle, and the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew)—the old London, Midland and Scottish scheme.
That would make use of that great main line, the capacity of which is vastly underutilised. My fear is that the investment to develop these routes to the north will not be available, as the Government will not give British Rail the finance that is needed because everything will have gone on the King's Cross project.
Another scheme that would be of great advantage to my constituency would be the electrification of the trans-Pennine route, from Leeds up to the Bradford interchange and then across to Halifax and through to the Lancashire capital of Manchester and across to Liverpool. At the moment, it is diesel-operated and the commuter services are overcrowded. More investment is needed. Despite interventions, the Minister has told us nothing about the effect of this investment on the rest of British Rail.
I want electrification of the trans-Pennine route, because it would be a real boost to the north. It will be eight years before the King's Cross route is finished, and therefore at least eight years before the north sees any benefit. Furthermore, freight, which is already decreasing fast on British Rail, will be further marginalised.
The Government are giving no incentives to encourage freight to return from road to rail. We should be looking carefully at the alternatives to see which would be of most benefit to the north in the short term, rather than allowing the development of a grandiose white elephant in King's Cross, which will soak up money and will not be of any benefit for 10 years. We need Government action now, and I am disappointed with their lack of response. It simply is not good enough.
The Minister ought to know that the money is not available to finance a major development on the basis that he outlined tonight. Part of that basis—apart from the public spending obligation that he mentioned—was increased property values, but that trend has been reversed. Higher property values were the basis on which British Rail stated that no direct public expenditure would be required for the King's Cross development.
I have grave reservations about that scheme, and in common with others of my hon. Friends, I want to see the development of an important and progressive rail network. I doubt whether the Bill will provide the basis for that.

11 pm

Mr. Tony Banks: I address my remarks to my hon. Friends, who ought to ask themselves whether, if we were in government, we would approach the matter in this way. The answer must be no. They must know in their hearts of hearts that we would not have used the private Bill procedure to determine a project of such significance to the nation as the construction of the second channel tunnel station.
It distresses me that British Rail has divided this side of the House. It is not a matter of arguing for Islington or for Stratford, but of what the whole country wants. It is manifest from recent press stories that, because the property market has collapsed and the budget is out of hand, the project will not go ahead.
I make the point to my hon. Friends that an attempt to destroy the Bill is being made not because of narrow constituency interests but because the decision in question is too important to consider under the private Bill procedure. We are not arguing the south versus the north, but we ask our hon. Friends to consider that a strategic decision should be taken in a different fashion. That is why I cannot support the Bill's Third Reading.
This issue will return to the House again before long, so even at this late moment I urge my hon. Friends also to vote against Third Reading.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—

The House divided: Ayes 165, Noes 5.

Division No. 59]
[11.02 pm


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Arnold, Sir Thomas


Alton, David
Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)


Amess, David
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)


Anderson, Donald
Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)


Arbuthnot, James
Barron, Kevin

 



 
Batiste, Spencer
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Beggs, Roy
Forth, Eric


Bevan, David Gilroy
Foster, Derek


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Franks, Cecil


Blunkett, David
Freeman, Roger


Boswell, Tim
Fyfe, Maria


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'pto'n)
Gill, Christopher


Bowis, John
Glyn, Dr Sir Alan


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Gordon, Mildred


Bright, Graham
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Gregory, Conal


Buck, Sir Antony
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Butler, Chris
Hague, William


Butterfill, John
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Caborn, Richard
Hampson, Dr Keith


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Hardy, Peter


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Haynes, Frank


Carr, Michael
Hinchliffe, David


Chapman, Sydney
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Chope, Christopher
Irvine, Michael


Colvin, Michael
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Conway, Derek
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Kilfedder, James


Couchman, James
Kilfoyle, Peter


Cousins, Jim
Kirkhope, Timothy


Crowther, Stan
Kirkwood, Archy


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Knowles, Michael


Devlin, Tim
Knox, David


Dewar, Donald
Lewis, Terry


Dixon, Don
Lightbown, David


Dover, Den
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Loyden, Eddie


Dykes, Hugh
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Emery, Sir Peter
McCartney, lan


Enright, Derek
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Evans, John (St Helens N)
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Maclean, David


Fatchett, Derek
Maclennan, Robert


Fearn, Ronald
McLoughlin, Patrick


Fenner, Dame Peggy
McMaster, Gordon



Mahon, Mrs Alice
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Mans, Keith
Snape, Peter


Marek, Dr John
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Stephen, Nicol


Martlew, Eric
Stern, Michael


Maxton, John
Stevens, Lewis


Meale, Alan
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Mills, lain
Stott, Roger


Morley, Elliot
Strang, Gavin


Moss, Malcolm
Summerson, Hugo


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Taylor, lan (Esher)


O'Brien, William
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


O'Hara, Edward
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Thompson, Sir D. (Calder Vly)


Oppenheim, Phillip
Thorne, Neil


Paice, James
Thurnham, Peter


Parry, Robert
Tracey, Richard


Patnick, Irvine
Trippier, David


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Waller, Gary


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Warren, Kenneth


Porter, David (Waveney)
Watts, John


Prescott, John
Wells, Bowen


Primarolo, Dawn
Wheeler, Sir John


Raffan, Keith
Widdecombe, Ann


Redmond, Martin
Wilkinson, John


Redwood, John
Wilson, Brian


Riddick, Graham
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Wood, Timothy


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn



Sackville, Hon Tom
Tellers for the Ayes:


Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim
Mr. Roger Knapman and


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Mr. Alistair Burt.


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)





NOES


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)



Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)
Tellers for the Noes:


Leadbitter, Ted
Mr. Chris Smith and


Nellist, Dave
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn.


Skinner, Dennis

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Uncertificated Securities

Postponed proceeding on Question, That the draft Uncertificated Securities Regulations 1992, which were laid before this House on 19th December, resumed.

The Minister for Corporate Affairs (Mr. John Redwood): Before the interruption at 7 pm, I was saying that there are a number of measures to help small shareholders—the complaints commissioner, the compensation scheme and a system allowing small shareholders to lock up their holdings and ask that they are not released unless they give special permission. I shall be happy to respond to any points made, but, in view of the lateness of the hour, I commend the regulations to the House.

Ms. Marjorie Mowlam: I welcome the Minister's short introduction of these regulations governing stock exchange transactions. We welcome the regulations.
We have been waiting many years for the legal underpinning of TAURUS, which is at last provided in the paperless electronic transfer system announced in legislative form today. To be precise, we have been waiting for 13 years. It is a full 13 years since the Group of 30 first set down internationally agreed standards for settlement of share transactions, and it is a full 10 years since the London stock exchange formally responded with the concept of TAURUS.
The Opposition sincerely hope that tonight sees the end of the Government's procrastination in the implementation of TAURUS. We do not want to have to sit through the experience of individuals at the stock exchange thinking of reasons for further delays. One's sympathy goes out to Peter Rawlins, the chief executive of the stock exchange, when he has to come up with excuse after excuse. The poor man is quoted as having said, when he had to announce further delays:
This is another disappointing blow to our aspirations.
It is a relief that he will not have to come up with any more such remarks.
As I have said, we have waited 10 years for the Government and the stock exchange to come up with some practical proposals. Throughout the years, we have witnessed minimal progress but a lot of buck-passing to explain the delays to which we have been subjected. The stock exchange, in its polite, indirect fashion of briefing, has discreetly said that the delays are due to the Government's late legal advice and to the fact that the Government's drafting was behind schedule.
On the other hand, the less delicate and more heavy-handed briefing of the DTI explains that the delay is due to the Stock Exchange's lack of correct computerisation or the inadequacy of staffing levels. In any case, there has been bickering between the two bodies as to why the process has taken so long, why it has been delayed month by month and year by year, until we are now waiting for May 1993.
If there is a further delay—one seriously worries that there may be—neither the stock exchange nor the DTI will be blamed. This time there will be another target. We shall be waiting for the annual general meetings at which companies will have to pass the regulations. No doubt the shareholders will be blamed for any further delays. It has

been a sad tale of delay and procrastination. One has been waiting so long for the Government and the stock exchange to come up with some practical proposals that one is tempted to welcome almost anything as better than nothing. DTI Ministers must be grateful to the Prime Minister for delaying the election long enough to allow these regulations to stand as the Government's final memorial.
In a sense, it no longer matters who is to blame—the stock exchange or the DTI. It is petty squabbling. At this late stage, we are just relieved to see the regulations going through. But at another level, the delay is in some ways a good case study of the problems that we have seen at the DTI over the years.
This is an example of the lack of leadership, the lack of drive, that we have seen in Minister after Minister. We have had Secretary of State after Secretary of State—as many as we have had years. The TAURUS delay is indicative of that kind of lack of management and lack of direction. That is why the DTI has come to be known in some quarters as the Department of total inertia.
I want to emphasise this point, which is not a cheap debating point.

Mr. Quentin Davies: Exactly.

Ms. Mowlam: If the hon. Member wants to intervene, I shall give him numerous other examples of the way in which the DTI reacts to a problem that has become too large to ignore. The Department does not take the initiative in solving problems. TAURUS is an example of the way in which it lets problems fester year after year.
I want to make it clear that we are committed to the forging of a constructive partnership with the stock exchange, as with other parts of the financial sector. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs) may laugh, but the partnership that we have seen over the years has resulted in arguments between Departments and the City. Institutions like the stock exchange and the DTI have had arguments.[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Wyre Forest may snigger in disbelief, but if he goes to France and Germany he will find Governments that work in partnership with industry because they want to encourage an active leadership role as they move into the 1990s. That is what we want for the financial services industry in this country.
I shall emphasise the main criticisms or problems that we perceive, and I shall welcome the Minister's response to them. First, the Government have shown that they have no clear and strategic approach to financial services. Their approach to equity holding is a good example of that. We have heard the Minister argue in favour of wider share ownership when the Government have underpriced privatisation issues in the hope of attracting small investors.
The thrust of the TAURUS proposals that are before us is the same as that of the big-bang reforms because they will favour large transactions from institutional investors. The Minister has said that the Government are interested in helping and protecting the small investor, and he mentioned lock-up and other facilities, but that is surely going a point too far if the process of introducing TAURUS means that the small investor is lost. I have no doubt that the economies of scale will mean cost savings for the larger players while the smaller players will lose out.
I hope that the Minister will not lower himself by using the hypocritical argument that smaller investors can use their votes at annual general meetings, if they do not want to use TAURUS, to stop company directors dematerialising. As he and I well know, company directors need only twist the arms of institutional investors, with the result that they will have the 75 per cent. interest that they need to ride through AGMs. In other words, there will be a negative outcome for the small investor.
Given the scandals that we have seen in the City in financial services in the past few years, we are seeing the establishment of a parallel regulatory regime for the TAURUS system rather than integration into the structure of the Financial Services Act 1986. We have often seen that self-regulation, without any accountability to an outside authority such as the Securities and Investments Board, is courting trouble for the future. That is scarcely likely to appeal to overseas investors.
The Minister talked about the role of account holders, and the problems with the present regulatory structure are well illustrated in that context. If we are considering the fitness and properness of account holders, it is for the stock exchange to define them as fit and proper. I am sure that the Minister understands that, to avoid costly duplication, the stock exchange will be dependent on the self-regulatory bodies for the testing of "fit and proper". That means that the stock exchange will be dependent ultimately on outside sources for defining the fitness and properness of account holders.
I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House can envisage situations in which there will be disagreement between the stock exchange and the self-regulatory organisations over the quality and validity of different information. That is the result of the parallel structure of regulation that the Government propose.
Another criticism is that the compensation fund arrangements have not been properly structured. The Opposition argue that £250,000 is not a large enough sum in view of the transactions that are involved. Given the long debate that has taken place on compensation, it would seem that the same view is taken by many others. In May, when it was suggested that the level would be much higher, the Minister said that, in the event of something going wrong, there would be substantial compensation.
Since then—I am sure that the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—we have had the battle between lax regulation/high compensation and tight regulation/low compensation; and what we have ended up with this evening is both lax regulation and low compensation. That is one of the weaknesses that we see in the compensation fund arrangements before us tonight.
It also furthers some of the problems of the compensation schemes in the City for the various financial services that we have seen manifested in previous years, because, with the TAURUS compensation fund outside the investor compensation scheme, the present system forgoes the opportuity to draw on a wider pool of contributors and hence improve the management of risk.
Those are the main questions that we on this side have about the regulations. The regulations are complex. Some of the complexity of the legislation is lessened by the fact that some of the details, as I understand it, will be put in the new rule book that will not come before the House. The Secretary of State will agree to the stock exchange's new rule book for TAURUS operators, and it is important at this point to say that the next Secretary of State in the

Department will look at the rule book carefully; we want to ensure that it is clear and coherent. But we want no further delays in a system that has already waited so many years for its implementation.
TAURUS is essential to maintain London's position as the top financial centre of Europe. We worry that the delays of previous years have helped to call into question the role that the financial institutions perform. With the French systems up and running in the Paris Bourse and the German Government making a concerted effort to modernise Frankfurt, there is no room for complacency such as we have seen in the Department of Trade and Industry in years gone by. A Labour Government will not be encumbered by misplaced loyalty to the Financial Services Act 1986. We will cut through the present jumble of responsibilities and plethora of bodies to achieve a streamlined system of regulations.
In the financial services industry, long-term business growth can only be achieved when the customer has confidence in the sound governance of the market. What we have seen up to now is not that. We want to see good business and good regulation go hand in hand. We argue that the Government have failed on both counts, and that is why even the financial services industry needs a Labour Government.

Mr. Redwood: The hon. Member for Redcar (Ms. Mowlam) says that the thrust of the proposals in the regulations is to help large investors and not small. I do not think that she can have read the proposals, because the regulations are full of protection for the small investor. As I itemised before and after the 7 o'clock bar on our proceedings, a number of the regulations have been designed with exactly that point in mind.
The hon. Lady should remember that, if the small shareholder wishes to keep his or her shareholding under the new TAURUS system through the company account rather than through a commercial controller, there will be no direct cost charged to him or her as a separate shareholder; it will be handled in the normal way, as at the moment, as a cost on the company generally. So I do not understand her point that it will be costly and burdensome to small shareholders, whose position is protected by the existence of the company account. They will go to the commercial account system only if it offers them a service that they wish to purchase at a sensible price.
The hon. Lady then said that she does not think that the regulatory regime here is tough enough. She does not feel that so strongly, I think, that she wants to vote against the regulations tonight, and I think that she conceded towards the end that the combination of this regulatory framework and a suitable rule book will do the job. Of course it will, because the regulations make it clear that the Secretary of State must satisfy himself before allowing the TAURUS operator to go ahead, and there will be a full, independent inspection of the system before the Secretary of State grants the authority to the operator to go ahead under these clear regulations.
Finally, the hon. Lady said that she did not think that the compensation scheme was adequate or properly structured. The sum is as large as I ever imagined it would be during our negotiations to get satisfactory compensation for individuals. The hon. Lady seems to forget that the compensation scheme is intended for private investors.
The level of cover—£250,000 for a single error or problem in a private investor's account—is more than adequate to the task. I should have thought that that sum would cover most investments made by most people—even members of the Labour party. The intention is to cover the private investor. Professionals look after themselves in other ways —through business checks and controls and by recourse to the law if things go wrong; £250,000 is a lot of money.
The hon. Lady made a number of procrastinatory remarks about delays. I do not recognise the story that she told. I established a full consultation exercise on TAURUS when I had from the stock exchange an idea of what it wanted. We wanted to consult widely—that included consulting the hon. Lady and the Labour party —because that is the fair way in which to do these things. I then brought the regulations to the House with expedition. There was no lack of initiative on the part of the Department of Trade and Industry. It is now over to the stock exchange to develop the system.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Uncertified Securities Regulations 1992, which were laid before this House on 19th December, be approved.

Unemployment (Pontefract and Castleford)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. John M. Taylor.]

Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: I am grateful for the opportunity to describe the problems of unemployment in my constituency and in neighbouring constituencies.
In December 1991, the official unemployment figures for the Castleford and Pontefract travel-to-work area were 10 per cent. of the total work force and 13 per cent. of the male work force. Recent announcements of job losses in the mining industry in my constituency and in neighbouring constituencies—at the Prince of Wales, Sharlston and Kellingley collieries and the Whitemoor colliery at Selby—will mean that 11.7 per cent. of the total work force and 15.7 per cent. of the male work force will be unemployed, the increases being 17 per cent. and 21 per cent. respectively. In December 1991, 8.7 per cent. of the total work force and 11.9 per cent. of the male work force in west Yorkshire were unemployed. Thus the unemployment rate in the area to which I am referring far exceeds both the rate for west Yorkshire and the national rate.
Since 1981, 17 collieries have closed, with the loss of 14,640 jobs. If one adds to that the 920 job losses announced last week in my area, the total number of jobs lost is 15,560–90 per cent. of Wakefield metropolitan district council's mining work force in 1981. Again, if one adds the jobs lost in spin-off industry, the job losses in the area total 20,000. Moreover, only yesterday, National Power announced that there would be hundreds of job losses at the Eggborough and Drax power stations.
The average age of the miners who have lost their jobs at the collieries to which I referred is 33. Some 95 per cent. of the Sharlston and Prince of Wales miners live in the Wakefield metropolitan district council area, as do 90 per cent. of the Kellingley miners and 60 per cent. of the Whitemoor miners. A total of 1,035 of the latest redundancies will affect people living in the area.
We must also take into account the closure of the Allerton Bywater colliery in March, with some 600 people —many of them also residing in the area—losing their jobs. The House and the Minister will appreciate the great problems that we are experiencing in my area and in other mining communities.
The collieries to which I refer are not unsuccessful collieries. For instance, as I understand it, those collieries can produce coal at about £38 per tonne, which compares well with the recently announced £68 per tonne reference price band for the European Community. The House can well appreciate how those miners will be feeling, given their efforts since 1985. Only a few weeks ago, some of them were breaking national output records, but this is the reward that they are now getting.

Mr. William O'Brien: I am grateful for the opportunity to intervene at this point. My hon. Friend will be aware that in July last year, when the chairman of British Coal presented his report, he said that British Coal had made 79 per cent. profit on the operational account and had broken records because of the dedication and the will of the men who worked in the industry. What a poor reward it is for people who have given devoted service to


be told only a few months later that they are to be made redundant. The travel-to-work area to which my hon. Friend referred covers a part of my constituency. I put it to the Minister that there is a great deal of concern, and the way in which British Coal has treated its work force in this recent announcement of redundancies is shameful.

Mr. Lofthouse: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I fully appreciate the points that he has made. His constituency is affected by the recent announcements.
Over the past year, production levels have been as follows: Sharlston, 1 million tonnes; Kellingley, 2.1 million tonnes; Prince of Wales, 1.35 million tonnes; and Whitemoor, 1.36 million tonnes. Two of those pits have made good profits over the past year. Two have not done so well, but both are in development phases, preparing for production that will make profits.
The colliery closures have had spin-off effects in the mining engineering industry, with which I know my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) is familiar. He has been doing a lot of work recently to assist that industry, which is mainly based in his constituency.

Mr. David Hinchliffe: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's reference to the mining engineering industry and I commend him on his efforts over many years on behalf of the coal industry in general. He is aware, I know, that last year the Wultex factory in Wakefield closed down, with the loss of 60 jobs. In the last week or two, we have lost 100 jobs at Gullick Dobson in Wakefield. Is it not absolute nonsense that in this situation, with the loss not only of 15,000 mining jobs but of an additional 5,000 jobs in industries affected by the coal industry, we do not get one scrap of assistance from the British Government to regenerate the economy in Wakefield? The only help we get from the European Community is blocked by the British Government, who refuse to allow us that assistance. Is that not absolute nonsense?

Mr. Lofthouse: My hon. Friend is right. At the beginning of the 1980s, the mining engineering industry was a very healthy industry in the area. Local firms were performing well and were innovators and they provided good-quality training. In 1981, 1,651 people were employed in the local industry. A large proportion of the work force were very highly skilled engineers.
As the mining industry has been run down, there has been parallel picture in the mining engineering industry. Between 1981 and 1987, the local mining engineering industry was cut back slightly, to 1,532 employees. With the acceleration in the colliery closure programme from 1985 onwards, the markets of the mining engineering industry have been massively reduced. Between 1987 and 1989, there were more than 400 job losses, reducing the local work force to 1,121 in 1989. Since 1989, the local work force has been halved, leaving only 577 employees in the industry in January 1992. Another 95 job losses in the next weeks have been announced. If they go ahead, the industry will have declined by 1,169 men, or 70.8 per cent. of the work force, since 1981. In the four years since the 1987 census of employment, the industry will have lost 1,050 men, or 68.5 per cent. of its work force.
I appreciate that the Minister is not responsible for National Power and PowerGen, but they seem to have got around the table in a cosy arrangement with British Coal to fix the coal contracts after 1993. They are going through the exercise of negotiation but, according to the

International Coal Report of 13 January, they have already agreed the tonnage that they will take from British Coal after 1993. It will be about 40 million tonnes, including opencast. That means that there will be 25 million tonnes of deep-mined coal.
There are also rumours that, because the commercial director of British Coal did not agree with that cosy little arrangement, he has got the sack. There is evidence of that. If the information about the tonnages is right, it means that the mining industry will be run down to about the size suggested in the Rothschild report. That could mean the loss of 30,000 to 40,000 more jobs in the industry between 1993 and 1995. It would mean that there would be no further competition in the electricity industry, as was foreseen at the time of the privatisation legislation. If British Coal is run down to the level needed to meet the demands of National Power and PowerGen, new players in the field could not purchase coal in this country. If gas is used for new or replacement capacity, the evidence is that it will be much dearer than coal.
If that is the case, newcomers would be in breach of the licences given on the privatisation of electricity. They would even be in difficulty in trying to import coal, because National Power and PowerGen have now got control of the ports at Immingham and are interested in Liverpool, so they are tying up that avenue, too. Therefore, there will be no competition in the supply of electricity. What is happening with British Coal, PowerGen and National Power is creating unemployment in mining communities such as mine.
My main point, which I have made many times in the House over the years, is that the Government have organised the rundown of the mining industry. For many years, they have had a duty to create replacement jobs in those communities but they have never done that in the areas to which I am referring.
The allocation of RECHAR to West Yorkshire totals £10.5 million, consisting of £8,568,000 from the European regional development fund and £1,792,000 from the European social fund. The Minister and his colleagues are witholding the RECHAR programme because of the Government's position on additionality. If that was not the case, projects ready for implementation within the Wakefield metropolitan district council area, which includes Pontefract and Castleford, would provide the following jobs: 600 in environmental improvements, 800 in the social and economic infrastructure, 550 in factory units and premises, 300 in tourism and 500 in small firms measures. Therefore, a total of 2,750 jobs could be got off the ground immediately in Wakefield alone if the Government would release the RECHAR programme.
I recognise that if RECHAR is released, Wakefield metropolitan district council's capital programme is so small that it would be unable to maximise the ERDF claim. But I strongly press the Minister to release RECHAR in view of the amount of the European social fund which is revenue-additional. At present, Wakefield could claim £622,000 for the 1990 and 1991 tranches, having incurred that expenditure to date. It could claim a further £1 million for 1992–93. All that money could be spent in the next two years on training redundant mineworkers and others in the power industry.
In those circumstances, and given that the Pontefract and Castleford area within the WMDC has received no Government assistance since the rapid rundown of the coal industry, I implore the Minister to release the


RECHAR money to save mining communities such as my constituency from devastation and to provide employment for young redundant mine workers, who have achieved record-breaking production since 1985, only to be rewarded with the loss of their jobs. I hope that the Minister will take the advice in several of the Energy Select Committee's reports, where it has recognised the problems of the mining communities and advised the Government to support them. So far, that advice has been ignored.
Only the other day, a press statement was attributed to Commissioner Millan, saying that he was considering further moneys for areas like mine after the announcement of those job losses. There has been a further announcement that this country could lose up to £900 million if the Government do not change their attitude. Surely no Minister would want those young miners, who are thrown on the scrap heap as a result of Government, British Coal and PowerGen policy, to face a future with no employment at all, when money is available to provide jobs for many of them.
Any Government, whatever their political label, who do not decide to relieve that problem when they have the power to do so are failing in their duty. They have an obligation to mining communities. Miners have worked hard to produce the cheapest coal in Europe but they are now being thrown out of work. Selby miners in particular have been transferred from pit to pit and they have taken out high mortgages to buy lovely houses, to which they are entitled. They are now worried stiff.
I hope that the Minister will have some news for us tonight, and say that the Government may change their minds over the RECHAR programme, as the Secretary of State for the Environment suggests.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Eric Forth): I congratulate the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) on having obtained this Adjournment debate. The House and I fully understand the concern which he has described in his constituency, and which his hon. Friends, have described in neighbouring constituencies, at the recent developments that have taken place. I do not want to involve myself—it is not my place to do so—in the energy policy elements that he has understandably raised. I shall confine my remarks to his points about employment and what can be and is being done to alleviate the problems that he outlined.
May I put in context the figures that the hon. Gentleman gave at the outset of his speech? He mentioned the Pontefract and Castleford travel-to-work area. It is worth reflecting on the fact that in June 1983, nearly 7,000 people were out of work in that area and that by June 1987, the figure was 8,347. The last available figure that the hon. Gentleman quoted was 5,632. Although that figure is still unacceptably high, as such unemployment figures would be in any part of the country, it shows that progress has been made, even against the background that the hon. Gentleman described. That figure suggests that progress has been made.
The hon. Gentleman concentrated on the fact that further recent job losses have been announced at the Kellingly, Prince of Wales and other Yorkshire collieries.
I appreciate that those losses are severe and why the hon. Gentleman has argued against those job cuts. However, I must remind the House that such matters are for British Coal to judge as an employer. It must make its best judgment about the commercial pressures and the jobs that it is to sustain. It must make a decision about the manpower requirements needed to produce the required tonnage to sell in competition with other fuels. I do not believe that the Government should seek to intervene directly in that process.

Mr. Hinchliffe: Surely the Government have already intervened by actively supporting the Immingham port legislation, which will enable coal to be imported up the Humber. That direct Government intervention has undermined the Yorkshire coalfield in Pontefract, Castleford and my constituency.

Mr. Forth: The hon. Gentleman is correct in the sense that it is for the Government of the day to determine the broad framework of energy policy. Coal, in conjunction with other fuels, fits into that framework. It is for those responsible for providing energy to the country to make the decisions about which fuels are the most appropriate. British Coal operates within that framework and it must draw its own conclusions about what level of employment is sustainable in different mining communities.
This debate is about the outcome of that series of policy decisions. I do not shrink from that and, in that sense, the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) is correct to say that the Government have some direct input. I appreciate the personal and family problems that are caused when individuals lose their jobs. However, with the continuing provision of the coal restructuring grant and other policies, redundant employees are still offered generous severance terms according to any measure.
British Coal announced recently that the age-related supplementary lump sum payments will terminate on 31 March 1992, after being in operation for more than two years. When British Coal announced that scheme in 1990, it said that its continued availability would be subject to review at an appropriate date. Whether any future scheme is introduced to replace those payments is a matter for British Coal and outside my responsibility. However, I understand that payments made under the scheme will be available to miners at the pits in the area mentioned by the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford where job losses have recently been announced, provided that miners apply before 31 March. I hope that those payments will ensure that the level of provision remains equal to that made in the past two years at least.

Mr. Lofthouse: I appreciate that this is not a matter for the Minister's Department, but he has not got the real picture. Some of the young men aged between 30 and 38 will end up with a payment of £18,000—equivalent to about a year and a half's salary. However, those men have no hope of any other job and they have a large mortgage around their necks. They believe that they have no future. That is their reward for achieving record production levels since 1985.

Mr. Forth: I can understand that reaction as an immediate response to what has happened, but that is not the full story. I do not know whether time will permit me


to mention all the schemes that are available through my Department, the Employment Service and the training and enterprise councils.
Many agencies can help people who have had the misfortune to lose their jobs to identify their strengths and weaknesses, or their skill requirements. They can help to identify the way in which those people can either find other work or set themselves up in self-employment. Many other miners who have lost their jobs have subsequently become self-employed. They will use the severance payments to seek other employment or self-employment. These possibilities exist. It is the responsibility of the dedicated people in the Employment Service—those working in the TECs—to seek to help people who have lost their jobs in mining to find alternative employment.
I hope that Opposition Members will help by looking at the positive opportunities that exist for re-employment or self-employment for those of all ages who have received redundancy payments and who have skills, energy and vigour still to offer. That is a better approach than claiming that people who have lost their jobs in mining are in some way—I think the phrase was used this evening —on the scrap heap or forgotten. Nothing could be further from the truth. Despite the concern expressed by Opposition Members this evening, putting the matter in such a negative light does not help these people. Government Departments try in these difficult circumstances to come up with policies that help.
Grants and money are important, but equally important is identifying more positive employment alternatives.
It is worth noting that during British Coal's major restructuring there has not been a single compulsory redundancy. That goes for job losses in the pits in the Selby coalfield—

Mr. O'Brien: The men at the Selby coalfield were told that, if they did not let the management know by the Sunday night whether they would take redundancy, they would receive no redundancy payments. If that is not compulsory, what is?

Mr. Forth: I am not in a position to comment on that, but the hon. Gentleman may want to pursue the matter to establish whether reasonable alternatives have been offered. But within the strict definition of compulsory redundancy, what I said remains true.
Those who choose redundancy will continue to be provided with specialist counselling and positive assistance in obtaining jobs by British Coal Enterprise, the body established expressly to help redundant miners and their communities. As hon. Members know, the Department of Energy has made over £60 million available to British Coal Enterprise, which has enabled it to create more than 75,000 opportunities for work nationwide. Over 80 per cent. of those registering at job shops set up by British Coal Enterprise at collieries which have closed have found employment. That reinforces my positive message of a moment ago.
As Opposition Members probably know, British Coal Enterprise has such a job shop at Allerton Bywater colliery; and I understand that it will now be setting up job shops at Sharlston, Kellingley and Prince of Wales

collieries. These are all positive steps being taken by British Coal Enterprise to meet the challenge outlined by the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford.
Opposition Members may want me to comment briefly on RECHAR. The allegation, repeated tonight, that the British Government are withholding the money is a travesty of the truth. It is Commissioner Millan who is withholding the money—

Mr. Derek Enright: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Forth: I will not. I have only two minutes left.

Mr. Enright: The Minister is afraid to give way.

Mr. Forth: I am trying to comment on a point that hon. Members have asked me about.
It is the Commissioner who has said that he is withholding the money, or who has threatened to withhold it because he claims that there is some sort of difficulty over the British Government's use of the money. That is not true. The Government continue to pursue policies in this matter which they have pursued for some time. The British Government want these programmes to be used in a positive way to help the areas for which they are designed. It does not help the communities involved when a former Labour Secretary of State comes up with such arguments—

Mr. Enright: Give way!

Mr. Forth: It is unhelpful of the Commissioner to come up with arguments that prevent the release of funds to help the very communities that the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford has mentioned. I hope that we can all move forward, as the Government hope to do, together with the commissioner, to identify whatever difficulties may exist and to work out ways of using the money in the ways for which it was intended—

Mr. Lofthouse: If the Government have their way and the money is paid to central Government, will the Minister guarantee that the money will come to Pontefract and Castleford and areas like it?

Mr. Forth: Provided that good will prevails on all sides and the matter is dealt with sensibly and practically, there is no doubt that the funds designed to help these areas will be directed towards them. No one wishes otherwise. The Government and the Commissioner must continue to try to identify any difficulties. Certainly, the Commissioner has admitted from time to time that he has similar difficulties with the definition of additionality even in other member states. The problem has arisen and continues to arise from time to time in various member states of the Community.
I hope that Opposition Members understand the Government's wish to adopt a positive attitude to the problems rightly brought to our attention by the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford this evening. I hope that he will accept my comments in that positive and helpful light.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at one minute past Twelve o'clock.